Connecticut  Geological  Survey- — Bulletin  No*  U 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT 


Char le  s R . Eas  tman 


State  of  Connecticut 

State  Geological  and  Natural  History  Survey 

Bulletin  No.  18 


TRIASSIC  FISHES 

OF  CONNECTICUT 


By 

CHARLES  ROCHESTER  EASTMAN,  Ph.D. 

Professor  of  Paleontology  at  the  University  of  Pittsburgh,  and 
Curator  in  charge  of  Fossil  Fishes  at  the  Carnegie  Museum 


BULLETINS 


OF  THE 

State  Geological  and  Natural  History 
Survey  of  Connecticut. 


1.  First  Biennial  Report  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  State 
Geological  and  Natural  History  Survey,  1903-1904. 

2.  A Preliminary  Report  on  the  Protozoa  of  the  Fresh 
Waters  of  Connecticut:  by  Herbert  William  Conn. 

3.  A preliminary  Report  on  the  Hymeniales  of  Connecticut: 
by  Edward  Albert  White. 

4.  The  Clays  and  Clay  Industries  of  Connecticut:  by  Gerald 
Francis  Loughlin. 

5.  The  Ustilagineae,  or  Smuts,  of  Connecticut:  by  George 
Perkins  Clinton. 

6.  Manual  of  the  Geology  of  Connecticut:  by  William  North 
Rice  and  Herbert  Ernest  Gregory. 

7.  Preliminary  Geological  Map  of  Connecticut:  by  Herbert 
Ernest  Gregory  and  Henry  Hollister  Robinson. 

8.  Bibliography  of  Connecticut  Geology:  by  Herbert  Ernest 
Gregory. 

9.  Second  Biennial  Report  of  the  Commissioners  of  the 
State  Geological  and  Natural  History  Survey,  1905-1906. 

10.  A preliminary  Report  on  the  Algae  of  the  Fresh  Waters 
of  Connecticut : by  Herbert  William  Conn  and  Lucia  Washburn 
(Hazen)  Webster. 

11.  The  Bryophytes  of  Connecticut:  by  Alexander  William 
Evans  and  George  Elwood  Nichols. 

12.  Third  Biennial  Report  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  State 
Geological  and  Natural  History  Survey,  1907-1908. 

13.  The  Lithology  of  Connecticut:  by  Joseph  Barrell  and 
Gerald  Francis  Loughlin. 

14.  Catalogue  of  the  Flowering  Plants  and  Ferns  of 
Connecticut  growing  without  cultivation : by  a Committee  of  the 
Connecticut  Botanical  Society.  [Out  of  print.] 

15.  Second  Report  on  the  Hymeniales  of  Connecticut:  hv 
Edward  Albert  White. 


1 6.  Guide  to  the  Insects  of  Connecticut:  prepared  under  the 
direction  of  Wilton  Everett  Britton.  Part  I.  General  Introduc- 
tion: by  Wilton  Everett  Britton.  Part  II.  The  Euplexoptera 
and  Orthoptera  of  Connecticut:  by  Benjamin  Hovey  Walden. 

1 7.  Fourth  Biennial  Report  of  the  Commissioners  of  the 
State  Geological  and  Natural  History  Survey,  1909-1910. 

18.  Triassic  Fishes  of  Connecticut:  by  Charles  Rochester 
Eastman. 

Bulletins  1,  9,  12,  and  17  are  merely  administrative  reports, 
containing  no  scientific  matter.  The  other  bulletins  may  be  classi- 
fied as  follows: 

Geology:  Bulletins  4,  6,  7,  8,  13,  18. 

Botany:  Bulletins  3,  5,  10,  n,  14,  15. 

Zoology:  Bulletins  2,  16. 

These  bulletins  are  sold  and  otherwise  distributed  by  the 
State  Librarian.  Postage,  when  bulletins  are  sent  by  mail,  is  as 
follows : No.  1,  $0.01 ; No.  2,  .07 ; No.  3,  .08 ; No.  4,  .06 ; No.  5,  .03 ; 
No.  6,  .12;  No.  7,  .06;  No.  8,  .05 ; No.  9,  .02;  No.  10,  .08;  No.  11, 
07 ; No.  12,  .02 ; No.  13,  .08 ; No.  I4f  ; No.  15,  .06 ; No.  16,  .07 ; No. 
1 7,  .02;  No.  18,  .07.  The  prices  when  the  bulletins  are  . sold  are  as 
follows  (including  postage)  : No.  1,  $0.05 ; No.  2,  .35 ; No.  3,  .40; 
No.  4,  .30;  No.  5,  .15;  No.  6,  .50;  No.  7,  .60*;  No.  8,  .20;  No.  9, 
.05;  No.  10,  .35;  No.  11,  .30;  No.  12,  .05;  No.  13,  .40;  No.  i4f  ; 
No.  15,  .35;  No.  16,  .35;  No.  17,  .05;  No.  18,  .25. 

Bulletins  1-5  are  bound  as  Volume  I.  The  price  of  this 
volume  is  $1.50.  Bulletins  6-12  are  bound  as  Volume  II.  The 
price  of  this  volume  is  $2.45.  Bulletins  13-15  are  bound  as  Vol- 
ume III.  The  price  of  this  volume  is  $2.50.  Other  volumes  will 
follow. 

It  is  intended  to  follow  a liberal  policy  in  gratuitously  dis- 
tributing these  publications  to  public  libraries,  colleges,  and 
scientific  institutions,  and  to  scientific  men,  teachers,  and  others 
who  require  particular  bulletins  for  their  work,  especially  to 
those  who  are  citizens  of  Connecticut. 

Applications  or  inquiries  should  be  addressed  to 

George  S.  Godard. 

State  Librarian, 
Hartford,  Conn. 


# If  map  is  mounted  as  a wall  map,  and  sent  by  express,  $1.60. 
t Bulletin  No.  14  is  out  of  print  and  can  be  furnished  only  in  the  bound  volume. 


CATALOGUE  SLIPS. 


Connecti cut . State  geological  and  natural  history  survey , 

Bulletin  No.  18.  Triassic  fishes  of  Connecticut.  By 
C.  B.  Eastman.  Hartford,  1911. 

77  pp.,  11  pis.,  8 figs.  23cm. 


j Eastman,  Charles  liochester . 

Triassic  fishes  of  Connecticut.  By  Charles  Roches- 
ter Eastman,  Hartford,  1911. 

77  pp.,  11  pis.,  8 figs.  23cm. 

(Bulletin  no.  18,  Connecticut  geological  and  natural  history  survey.) 


I 


/ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/triassicfishesof00east_0 

( ■ 


CATALOGUE  SLIPS. 


Geology. 

Eastman,  C.  R.  Triassic  fishes  of  Connecticut. 
Hartford,  1911. 

77  pp.,  11  pis.,  8 figs.  23cm. 

(Bulletin  no.  18,  Connecticut  geological  and  natural  history  survey.) 


Paleontology . 

Eastman,  C.  R.  Triassic  fishes  of  Connecticut. 
Hartford,  1911. 


77  pp.,  11  pis.,  8 figs.  23cm. 

(Bulletin  no.  18,  Connecticut  geological  and  natural  history  survey.) 


State  of  Connecticut. 

PUBLIC  DOCUMENT  NO.  47 


State  Geological  and  Natural 
History  Survey 


Simeon  Eben  Baldwin,  Governor  of  Connecticut  (Chairman) 
Arthur  Twining  Hadley,  President  of  Yale  University 
William  Arnold  Shanklin,  President  of  Wesleyan  University 
Flavel  Sweeten  Luther,  President  of  Trinity  College  (Secretary) 
Charles  Lewis  Beach,  President  of  Connecticut  Agricultural  College 


COMMISSIONERS 


SUPERINTENDENT 
William  North  Rice 


Bulletin  No.  18 


Hartford 

Printed  for  the  State  Geological  and  Natural  History  Survey 

1911 


Publication 


Approved  by 

The  Board  of  Control. 


The  Case,  Lockwood  & Brainard  Co.,  Hartford,  Conn. 


TRIASSIC  FISHES 

OF 

CONNECTICUT 


By 

CHARLES  ROCHESTER  EASTMAN,  Ph.ID. 


Professor  of  Paleontology  at  the  University  of  Pittsburgh,  and  Curator 
in  charge  of  Fossil  Fishes  at  the  Carnegie  Museum 


“Die  Weisheit  ist  nur  in  der  Wahrheit.  "—Goethe. 


HARTFORD 

Printed  for  the  State  Geological  and  Natural  History  Survey 

1911 


CONTENTS. 

Page 

I.  On  the  Study  of  Fossil  Fishes  in  General  ...  9 

II.  Geologic  Correlation  of  the  Connecticut  Valley  Fish- 
bearing Beds  ......  23 

III.  Geography  of  the  Trias  .....  36 

IV.  Concerning  Earlier  Investigation  of  North  American  Tri- 

assic  Fishes  ......  39 

V.  Systematic  Descriptions  of  Upper  Triassic  Fishes  . 42 


s. 


ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Plates. 

I.  Semionotus  agassizii  (W.  C.  Redfield).  Trias;  Sunderland, 

Massachusetts.  Type  of  Newberry’s  so-called  Ischypter . 
us  marshi. 

II.  Semionotus  agassizii  ( W.  C.  Redfield ).  Trias  ; Sunderland, 

Massachusetts.  Head  and  anterior  portion  of  trunk- 
XI 

III.  Semionotus  fultus  (Agassiz).  Trias;  Boonton,  New  Jersey. 

Figured  specimen.  Xj 

IV.  Semionotus  micropterus  (Newberry).  Trias;  Durham,  Con- 

necticut. Xj 

V.  Semionotus  elegans  (Newberry).  Trias;  Boonton,  New  Jer- 
sey. Figured  specimen.  X{ 

VI.  Semionotus  nilssoni  Agassiz.  Rhaetic ; Hoegenaes,  Sweden. 

Head  portion  of  holotype,  showing  cranial  plates  and 
dentition.  XJ 

VII.  Ptycholepis  marshi  Newberry.  Trias  ; Durham,  Connecticut. 
XJ 

VIII.  Ptycholepis  marshi  Newberry.  Trias;  Durham,  Connecticut. 

Showing  dorsal  aspect  of  vertically  compressed  cranium. 

XJ 

IX.  Catopterus  gracilis  J.  H.  Redfield.  Trias;  near  Middletown, 
Connecticut.  Cotype.  Xf 

X.  Catopterus  gracilis  J.  H.  Redfield.  Trias  ( Posterior  shale  ) ; 
Durham,  Connecticut.  Scales  appearing  whitish  by 
reason  of  mineral  replacement.  Xf  « 

XI.  Catopterus  gracilis  J.  H.  Redfield.  Trias  ; Durham,  Connect- 
icut. Xf 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY. 


8 


Figures  in  Text. 

1.  Cephalaspis  murchisoni  Egerton.  Lower  Old  Red  Sand- 

stone ; Herefordshire.  ( After  A.  S.  Woodward) 

2.  Outlines  of  Acanthodian  Fishes.  A,  Climatius  scutiger 

Egerton.  B,  Mesacanthus  mite  belli  (Egerton).  C, 
Aca?ithodes  sulcatus  Agassiz.  D,  Acanthodes  gracilis 


Roemer  . . . . . . .15 

3.  Cladoselache  fyleri  Newberry.  Cleveland  shales  (Upper 

Devonian ) ; near  Cleveland,  Ohio.  ( After  Bashford 
Dean)  .......  16 

4.  Dipterus  valenciennesi  Sedgwick  and  Murchison.  Lower 

Old  Red  Sandstone  ; Scotland.  (After  R.  H.  Traquair)  17 

5.  Catopterus  redfieldi  Egerton.  Trias  ; Durham,  Connecticut. 

Reproduction  of  Newberry’s  original  drawing  of  dorso- 
lateral aspect  of  the  head  .....  54 

6.  Catopterus  redfieldi  Egerton.  Trias;  Durham,  Connecticut. 

Reproduction  of  Newberry’s  original  drawing  show- 
ing under  side  of  the  head  . . . .54 

7.  Comparative  diagrams  showing  types  of  cranial  structure. 

1,  Rhabdolepis.  2,  Netnatopty chins.  3,  Rhadinichthys. 

4,  Palceoniscus.  5,  Semionotus  . . . *59 

8.  Semionotus  agassizii  ( W.  C.  Redfield).  Trias  ; Sunderland, 

Massachusetts.  X£  . . . . .62 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


i. 

ON  THE  STUDY  OF  FOSSIL  FISHES  IN  GENERAL. 


“ There  will  we  find  laws  which  shall  interpret, 
Through  the  simpler  past,  existing  life.” — 

Kingsley.- 


PALEONTOLOGY  is  the  natural  history  of  the  Past.  It  is 
that  branch  of  biological  science  which  acquaints  us  with  the 
endless  succession  of  animate  forms  that  has  inhabited  the  earth 
since  life  first  began.  Primarily  an  extension  of  zoology  and 
botany,  as  these  subjects  are  commonly  understood,  it  may  be 
regarded  also  as  an  historical  science,  by  virtue  of  the  time 
element  pervading  it.  Its  aims  and  methods  are  akin  to  the 
historian’s.  The  facts  it  deals  with  are  vital  facts,  linked  together 
by  the  principle  of  continuity  and  progressive  development.  The 
story  it  unfolds  is  one  of  world-wide  changes,  of  silent,  slow, 
and  exceedingly  gradual  transformations  wrought  upon  organic 
framework  by  an  infinity  of  complex  forces,  strivings,  tendencies, 
surroundings,  all  operating  through  immense  cycles  of  time,  and 
culminating  finally  in  one  supreme  achievement  — in  the  produc- 
tion of  a race  of  beings  possessed  of  self-conscious  intelligence, 
and  of  a well-nigh  unlimited  development  of  that  faculty. 

The  historical  aspect  of  paleontology  is  worth  considering. 
What  is  the  theme  of  human  history,  if  it  be  not  the  development 
of  mankind?  Is  it  not  a record  of  all  the  changes  in  the  state 
of  men  which  have  occurred  since  the  first  evidences  of  “ the 
sons  of  men  ” upon  our  globe  ? Does  it  not,  in  a word,  inform  us 
of  the  progression  of  human  events  ? The  theme  of  paleontology 
is  similar,  but  broader.  It  is  compassed  by,  and  at  the  same  time 
extends,  the  domain  of  universal  history.  It  treats  of  the  de- 
velopment of  life  in  general,  considers  it  in  its  grandes  lignes, 


10  CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 

in  all  its  manifold  manifestations.  It  is  the  record  of  all  the 
changes  and  progressive  modifications  that  have  taken  place 
among  organic  forms  since  their  first  appearance  in  remote 
geological  antiquity.  It  seeks  to  ascertain  the  value  of  various 
adjustments  to  external  conditions,  of  improvements  in  mechani- 
cal contrivances  and  other  factors  making  for  an  advance;  and, 
in  tracing  this  line  of  progress,  it  aims  to  assign  to  different 
groups,  or  to  different  grades  of  the  same  group,  their  proper 
position  and  relative  importance  in  the  scheme  of  upward  trans- 
formation. 

If  the  mystery  of  the  beginning  of  all  things  must  forever 
remain  insoluble  for  us,  as  Darwin  with  his  life-work  behind 
him  was  obliged  to  admit,1  paleontology  at  least  dispels  for  us 
some  of  the  obscurity  of  former  geological  cycles,  during  which 
life  existed  on  our  planet  and  left  memorials  of  its  infinitely 
slow  progress  along  the  road  to  perfection.  Perfection,  that  is, 
in  the  Darwinian  sense:  meaning  the  production  of  the  higher 
animals,  and  their  capacity  for  psychic  advance.  An  impressive 
spectacle  this;  no  one  can  contemplate  it  seriously  without  feel- 
ing the  sense  of  that  infinity  in  contrast  with  which  a man  recog- 
nizes his  own  finitude.  Then  it  is  that  one  feels  in  accord  with 
Keats’  view: 

“Stop  and  consider!  life  is  but  a day; 

A fragile  dew-drop  on  its  perilous  way 
From  a tree’s  summit;  a poor  Indian’s  sleep 
While  his  boat  hastens  to  the  monstrous  steep 
Of  Montmorenci.  ...” 

It  is  not  only  a just,  but  a truly  ennobling  conception  to  re- 
gard paleontology  as  an  extension  of  human  history.  " La 
science  des  sciences , c’est  done  la  science  de  I’homme,”  Montaigne 
aptly  remarks.  Would  we  comprehend  our  own  nature,  and  seek 
to  know  what  man  in  his  essence  really  is,  what  he  has  been, 
whence  he  came,  whither  bound,  what  destiny  he  may  achieve, 
and,  finally,  what  value  attaches  to  his  mortality  — to  acquire 
this  self-knowledge  we  must  study  that  larger  nature  of  which 
man  forms  so  insignificant  a part.  The  soul  grows  in  knowl- 
edge of  itself  as  it  realizes  the  contrast  with  the  grandeur,  the 
sheer  massiveness  of  nature,  and  the  eternity  of  the  hidden  forces 


i Life  and  Letters  of  Charles  Darwin,  edited  by  Francis  Darwin. 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


II 


which  are  now  and  ever  have  been  at  work  re-shaping  the  world 
since  the  very  foundation  of  being.  Knowledge  of  this  sort 
vastly  enlarges  our  consciousness,  gives  to  our  mortality  a setting 
and  perspective,  dilates  the  mind  and  elevates  the  spirit  by  forc- 
ing them  to  range  widely  over  the  realm  of  universal  history. 
It  also  enables  us  to  form  a relative  estimate  of  ourselves  and 
our  career  by  applying  a larger  scale  of  life  — the  scale  of  in- 
finity. Clearly,  therefore,  the  humanistic  interest  of  paleontology 
is  very  great;  and  considerations  of  this  nature  help  determine 
the  value  of  any  science  quite  apart  from  questions  of  practical 
utility.  In  every  science  there  may  be  a twofold  yield ; one  that 
is  expressed  in  material  values,  and  another  that  is  interpreted 
in  terms  of  the  spirit.  Returns  of  both  kinds  are  wprth  striving 
for. 

But,  it  may  be  objected  by  some,  the  facts  of  paleontology 
can  at  best  only  remotely  affect  our  traditional  outlook  upon 
life.  For  those  who  are  satisfied  merely  with  the  assembling  of 
facts,  and  look  no  further  than  a connection  between  them, 
without  being  able  to  comprehend  the  life  of  thought  in  general, 
this  objection  may  hold.  But  the  thoroughgoing  inquirer  insists 
not  merely  upon  an  accumulation  of  dead  knowledge;  his  mind 
aims  at  an  interpretation  of  the  results  of  investigation,  and 
attaches  to  these  things  meanings  and  values.  So  far  as  relates 
to  human  or  universal  history,  the  supreme  value  lies  in  under- 
standing what  has  happened,  in  perceiving  the  meaning  of  events, 
in  grasping  the  principles  and  laws  that  govern  organic  and 
social  evolution.  For  this  purpose  the  past  must  needs  be  re- 
constructed by  means  of  the  trained  imagination  out  of  all  avail- 
able data.  The  more  vigilant  the  imagination,  the  better  his- 
torian, and  the  better  scientific  investigator,  other  things  being 
equal ; for  to  the  well-trained  explorer  in  any  science  this  faculty 
is  never  a hindrance,  but  a positive  advantage.  Obviously,  if 
one  lacks  the  power  of  transporting  himself  into  the  past,  one 
can  understand  nothing  of  the  past.  But  once  that  mental 
journey  accomplished,  and  so  soon  as  we  acquire  the  habit  of 
looking  at  experience  objectively,  without  immediate  relation  to 
our  own  time  and  place,  then,  in  the  words  of  an  English 
historian  (Bury),  “the  modern  age  falls  into  line  with  its  pre- 
decessors and  loses  its  obtrusive  prominence,  and  we  come  to 


12 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 


see  our  petty  periods  sub  specie  perennitatis.”  World-facts  con- 
templated in  this  way  help  us,  so  says  yet  another  historical 
writer  (Villari),  to  “ gain  a new  consciousness  of  our  own  being, 
and  to  win  deeper  insight  into  recesses  of  our  own  nature.” 
The  essayist  just  quoted  gives  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  history 
of  the  whole  universe  is  required  to  explain  the  individual  man, 
“ because,”  as  he  says,  “ more  or  less  transformed,  all  history 
lives  in  us  human  beings.  Therefore,  as  it  lives  in  us  all,  why 
should  we  marvel  at  our  power  of  transporting  ourselves  back 
into  past  times  and  living  once  more  in  them?  In  studying  the 
history  of  Greece,  we  not  only  read  the  tale  of  a vanished  past, 
but  also  that  of  a society  and  of  a civilization  that,  although 
transformed,  still  endures  within  us  as  a constituent  element  of 
our  mentality.  Thus  we  are  reading  the  history  of  a part  of 
ourselves,  and  gain  a clearer  appreciation  of  that  part  on  seeing 
it  developed,  magnified,  and  surrounded  with  its  pristine  glory, 
as  it  first  flashed  upon  the  world  through  the  deeds  of  the  Grecian 
people.  . . . Thus  in  reading  universal  history  we  learn  to 

recognize  the  process  by  which  our  own  intelligence  has  been 
gradually  built  up.  It  has  been  justly  remarked  that,  even  as 
the  geologist  can  trace  the  history  of  the  transformations  of 
the  globe  from  any  chance  handful  of  earth,  so  too  the  philol- 
ogist, on  analyzing  some  phrase  you  have  uttered,  will  find  in  it 
the  record  of  the  transformations  of  tongues.”1 

It  is  an  obvious  truism  that  to  every  man  the  world  as  he 
sees  it  depends  on  his  physical  organization  and  upon  the  way 
he  has  been  taught  to  look  at  it  through  education  and  years  of 
experience.  But  the  scientific  conception  of  the  world  and  of 
the  value  and  meaning  of  life  has  become  profoundly  modified 
within  comparatively  recent  times  through  the  influence  of  re- 
organizing ideas.  Men  in  all  ages  have  shown  the  keenest 
interest  in  the  problems  of  man’s  origin  and  past  development. 
The  first  great  step  in  advance  was  made  by  the  shores  of  the 
yEgean  more  than  two  thousand  years  ago.  But  the  positive 
results  of  ancient  philosophy  were  inadequate  and  limited,  as 
compared  with  modern,  because  of  its  more  limited  resources. 
After  the  time  of  the  Greek  poets  and  philosophers,  more  than 
two  milleniums  were  to  pass  away  before  those  new  reorganizing 


1 Villari,  Pasquale,  Studies  Historical  and  Critical,  1907,  p.  37  ff. 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


13 


ideas  — those  which  include  the  principle  of  continuity  and  the 
higher  principle  of  development  — became  effectual  in  the  world 
of  thought,  and  enlightened  mankind  through  the  medium  of 
Darwin’s  utterances.  Both  in  history  and  in  natural  science 
the  spirit  of  investigation  was  completely  transformed  by  these 
ideas. 

So  much  by  way  of  parenthesis.  Enough  has  now  been  said 
to  show  that  the  natural  history  of  the  past  possesses  rich  interest 
from  a culturo-historical  or  humanistic  standpoint.  And  from 
these  matters  we  pass  on  to  a consideration  of  our  special  theme, 
the  study  of  fossil  fishes  in  general.  Before  speaking,  however, 
of  the  introduction  and  succession  of  the  class  of  fishes  in  point 
of  chronological  sequence,  it  may  be  useful  to  insert  at  this 
point  a table  showing  the  principal  divisions  of  the  stratigraphic 
column,  which  will  serve  the  double  purpose  of  indicating  the 
position  of  our  Triassic  rocks  in  the  system,  and  marking  the 
advent  of  successively  higher  classes  of  vertebrates.  Forma- 
tional  units,  it  is  to  be  observed,  are  divided  into  systems,  series, 
and  groups ; and  the  corresponding  time-relations  are  expressed 
by  the  terms  eras  (or  ages),  periods,  and  epochs.  Following 
is  the  commonly  accepted  arrangement: 


GEOLOGICAL  TIME-SCALE 


Eras 

Periods 

Life 

Cenozoic  | 

Quaternary 

Tertiary 

Man 

Manffmals  the  dominant  class 

Mesozoic  j 

Cretaceous 

Jurassic 

Triassic 

Reptiles  dominant  throughout  era 
Birds  appear 
Earliest  mammals 

f 

Paleozoic  •{ 

{ 

Carboniferous 

Devonian 

Silurian 

Ordovician 

Cambrian 

Amphibians  the  dominant  class 
Fishes  dominant 
Invertebrates  still  dominant 
Fishes  appear 

Leading  groups  of  invertebrates 

Archaean 

Scanty  and  indistinct  organic  re- 
mains 

14 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 


The  Cambrian  system,  at  the  base  of  the  Paleozoic,  has  thus 
far  failed  to  yield  any  indication  of  the  presence  of  backboned 
creatures.  Neither  Chordates  nor  “ Protochordates,”  that  is, 
primitive  forerunners  of  the  vertebrate  phylum,  make  their  ap- 
pearance in  the  geological  time-scale  until  the  Ordovician,  after 
which  they  continue  sparsely  throughout  the  Silurian.  From 
what  lower  group  of  organisms  the  primitive  progenitors  of  the 
vertebrate  stem  were  descended,  and  during  what  period  the 
hiatus  between  diverse  phyla  was  bridged  over,  we  have  no 
means  of  knowing.  The  absence  of  transitional  forms,  or  indeed 
even  of  Protochordates,  in  strata  anterior  to  the  Ordovician 
is  not  a very  significant  fact,  when  it  is  considered  that  the 
primitive  forerunners  of  chordate  animals  were  probably  soft- 
bodied,  and  therefore  incapable  of  preservation  in  the  rocks. 
Although  numerous  indications  of  fish-like  vertebrates  have  been 
obtained  at  different  localities  both  in  this  country  and  abroad, 
as,  for  instance,  from  the  Ordovician  of  Colorado,  Montana,  and 
Scotland,  it  is  not  until  the  Silurian  that  their  remains  are  found 
satisfactory  enough  for  discussion.  The  dominant  forms  of  fish 
life  that  we  are  acquainted  with  from  rocks  of  this  age  belong  to 
the  lowly  group  of  Ostracophores  — creatures  which  differ  from 
Fishes  proper  to  such  an  extent  that  they  are  usually  included  in 
a separate  class  (Agnatha).  They  have  incompletely  formed 
jaws,  are  destitute  of  paired  fins,  and  are  without  calcified  en- 
doskeletal  parts  (Fig.  i).  On  the  other  hand,  as  their  name 
implies,  they  are  protected  by  a shell-like  external  covering, 
whose  elaboration  can  be  traced  through  a number  of  successive 
stages.  Toward  the  close  of  the  Devonian  they  become  entirely 
extinct,  without  leaving  descendants. 


Fig.  i.  Cephalaspis  murchisoni  Egerton.  Lower  Old  Red  Sand- 
stone ; Herefordshire.  Head-shield  seen  from  above,  tail  twisted  to 
show  dorsal  fin  and  heterocercal  tail  mainly  in  side  view.  X 
(after  Smith  Woodward). 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


15 


Although  forming  the  dominant  feature  of  Silurian  verte- 
brate life,  Ostracophores  are  nevertheless  accompanied  in  the 


Fig  2.  Outlines  of  Acanthodian  Fishes,  illustrating  their 
gradual  elongation  in  shape  and  loss  of  intermediate  spines  during 
successive  periods.  A,  Climatius  scutiger  Egerton.  Lower  Old  Red 
Sandstone;  Scotland.  B,  Mesacanthus  mitchelli  (Egerton).  Ibid. 
C,  Acanthodes  sulcatus  Agassiz.  Lower  Carboniferous;  Edin- 
burgh. D,  Acanthodes  gracilis.  Roemer.  Lower  Permian; 
Bohemia.  a,  anal  fin;  d,  dorsal  fin;  i.  sp.,  intermediate  spines; 
p,  pectoral  fins.  (From  Smith  Woodward,  partly  after  Traquair 
and  Fritsch.) 


i6 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 


latter  part  of  that  system  by  creatures  which  surpass  them  in 
grade,  and  are  perfectly  recognizable  as  true  fishes,  possessing 
as  they  do  ordinary  jaws  and  two  pairs  of  lateral  fins.  These 
oldest  remains  of  typical  fishes  — they  are  called  Acanthodians 
after  the  name  of  the  first  described  genus  — are  probably  to  be 
regarded  as  Elasmobranchs,  and  evidently  have  not  diverged  very 
far  from  the  primordial  stock  which  gave  rise  not  only  to  the 
line  of  sharks  and  rays,  but  also  to  different  grades  of  higher 
fishes.  Acanthodians  (Fig.  2)  are  a long-lived  race,  continuing 
throughout  the  Paleozoic.  An  allied  primitive  tribe  that  was 
less  successful,  and  by  reason  of  its  long-bodied  form  is  regarded 
by  some  writers  (Woodward)  as  senile,  is  that  typified  by 
Cladoseiache  (Fig.  3),  which  is  known  from  the  late  Devonian. 


Fig.  3.  Cladoseiache  fylcri  Newberry.  Cleveland  shale 
(Upper  Devonian)  ; near  Cleveland,  Ohio.  Right  lateral  aspect, 
about  one-tenth  natural  size.  A primitive  shark,  illustrating  the 
simplest  kind  of  paddle-fins,  which  are  supported  by  nearly  par- 
allel bars  of  cartilage  (after  Bashford  Dean). 

During  the  Devonian  appeared  two  large  groups  of  fishes 
with  paddle-shaped  fins.  These  groups  are  commonly  known  as 
Lung-fishes  and  “ fringe-finned  ” Ganoids  — Dipnoi  and  Cross- 
opterygii  they  are  technically  called.  Their  geological  history 
is  peculiar.  Both  groups  early  acquired  dominance,  spread  over 
all  regions  of  the  globe,  and  seem  indeed  to  have  culminated  in 
the  Devonian,  being  numerically  and  specifically  more  abundant 
during  that  period  than  at  any  subsequent  epoch.  Only  two 
modern  survivors  of  Crossopterygii  are  known  from  African 
rivers  ( Polypterus  and  Calamoichthys) . Of  the  long  and  archaic 
line  of  Lung-fishes  represented  by  Dipterus  (Fig.  4)  and  its 
associates  in  the  Devonian,  only  the  most  generalized  Ceratodont 
type,  represented  nowadays  by  but  three  fresh-water  genera,  has 
been  able  to  persist  until  our  own  time.  That  the  Ceratodont 
type  has  had  a continuous  existence  since  the  early  Paleozoic 
follows  as  a logical  necessity  from  regarding  the  Dipterine  group 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


17 


2 


l8  CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 

as  a specialized  derivative.  Recently  described  remains  of  Pro - 
topterus  from  the  African  Tertiary  present  an  astonishing  like- 
ness to  Sagenodus,  as  regards  the  dentition. 

Yet  another  group  of  fishes,  representing  a still  higher  grade 
than  any  of  the  foregoing,  makes  its  first  appearance  during  the 
Devonian,  but  does  not  begin  to  acquire  dominance  until  the 
Carboniferous.  This  is  the  great  group  of  Actinopterygians  or 
“ ray-finned  ” fishes,  to  which  by  far  the  greater  number  of 
modern  forms  belong.  From  the  Devonian  • onward  until  the 
close  of  the  Permian,  this  higher  grade  of  fishes  was  represented 
by  a single  family  of  primitive  Chondrostei,  whose  degenerate 
descendants  finally  passed  over  into  modern  Sturgeons.  It  is 
probable  that  the  short-lived  family  of  the  Catopteridae,  which 
gained  a wide  distribution  in  the  Trias,  is  an  offshoot  of  the 
tribe  of  primitive  Sturgeons;  and  it  is  noteworthy  that  the  de- 
cline of  the  latter  began  simultaneously  with  the  rise  of  the 
next  higher  suborder,  or  Protospondyli.  No  links  are  known 
connecting  this  suborder  with  the  Chondrostei,  hence  in  the 
present  state  of  our  knowledge,  the  Sturgeon  tribe  and  the  Pro- 
tospondyli are  distinctly  demarcated.  During  the  Trias  the 
Protospondyli  are  represented  by  the  important  and  truly  cos- 
mopolitan family  of  Semionotidae,  which,  with  the  previously 
mentioned  Catopteridae,  form  the  chief  constituents  of  our  local 
Triassic  fish  fauna..  The  only  modern  representatives  of  this 
suborder  are  the  bow-fin  and  garpike  ( Amia  and  Lepidosteus) , 
both  confined  to  the  fresh  waters  of  North  America,  and  ex- 
hibiting the  long-bodied  shape  of  senile  or  decrepit  derelicts. 

Associated  with  members  of  the  preceding  suborder  (Pro- 
tospondyli) in  rocks  of  the  Upper  Trias  are  found  a few  fishes 
having  a remarkably  modern  aspect,  and  characterized  not  only 
by  a complete  vertebral  column,  but  also  by  a simplified  lower 
jaw,  which  consists  of  but  two  pieces  on  each  side.  The  fore- 
runners of  the  Isospondyli,  as  this  suborder  is  called  in  allusion 
to  the  circumstance  that  the  vertebrae  are  simple,  without  being 
fused  into  a group  behind  the  head,  scarcely  differ  in  grade  from 
the  modern  herring  tribe.  Among  typical  representatives  may 
be  mentioned  the  genera  Pholidophorus  and  Leptolepis,  ranging 
throughout  the  Triassic  and  Jurassic.  The  group  displays  rather 
feeble  vigor  until  the  beginning  of  the  Cretaceous,  when  it 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


19 


rapidly  multiplied,  became  dominant,  and  replaced  the  Pro- 
tospondyli.  Living  members  of  the  suborder  belong  to  that 
division  of  bony  fishes  known  as  physostomous  Teleostei. 

One  of  the  late  Professor  Beecher’s  generalizations,  which 
seems  to  hold  true  throughout  the  animal  kingdom,  is  that 
spines  characterize  only  the  latest  representatives  of  the  class. 
Applying  this  to  the  class  of  Pisces,  Dr.  Smith  Woodward  re- 
marks: “ The  Acanthopterygii  (“spine-finned”)  are  thus  the 

highest  and  latest  fishes  of  all,  though  they  sometimes  eventually 
descend  from  their  high  estate  by  degeneration.  They  exhibit 
all  the  peculiar  changes  in  the  skull,  upper  jaw,  and  pelvic  fins 
noticed  as  first  appearing  in  a variable  manner  in  the  Cretaceous 
Isospondyli.  The  spiny-finned  fishes  began  by  Berycoids  and 
possibly  Scombroids  in  the  Chalk,  closely  resembling,  but  not 
identical  with  genera  living  at  the  present  day.  By  the  Eocene 
period,  however,  nearly  all  the  modern  groups  of  Acanthopterygii 
had  become  completely  separated  and  developed,  and  their  sud- 
den appearance  is  as  mysterious  as  that  of  early  Eocene 
mammals.” 

The  same  eminent  authority  also  recapitulates  the  main  out- 
lines of  the  evolutionary  history  of  fishes  in  the  following 
passage  i1 

“ Fossils  prove  that  the  earliest  fish-like  organisms  strength- 
ened their  external  armour  so  long  as  they  remained  compara- 
tively sedentary ; that  next  the  most  progressive  members  of  the 
class  began  to  acquire  better  powers  of  locomotion,  and  con- 
centrated all  their  growth-energy  on  the  elaboration  of  fins; 
that,  after  the  perfection  of  these  organs,  the  internal  bony 
skeleton  was  completed  at  the  sacrifice  of  the  outer  plates,  be- 
cause rapid  movement  necessitated  a flexible  body  and  rendered 
external  armour  less  useful ; that,  finally,  in  the  highest  types 
the  vertebrae  and  some  of  the  fin-rays  were  reduced  to  a fixed  and 
practically  invariable  number  for  each  family  and  genus,  while 
there  was  a remarkable  development  of  spines.  As  survivors  of 
most  of  these  stages  still  exist,  the  changes  in  the  soft  parts 
which  accompanied  the  successive  advances  in  the  skeleton  can 
be  inferred.  Hence  palaeontology  furnishes  a sure  basis  for  a 

1 Woodward,  A.  S.,  The  Relations  of  Palaeontology  to  Biology.  Ann.  Mag.  Nat. 
Hist.,  1906,  ser.  7,  xviii,  p.  314. 


20 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 


natural  classification  in  complete  accord  with  the  development  of 
the  group.” 

Concerning  the  matter  of  classification,  it  need  only  be  re- 
marked that  Pisces  proper  are  divided  into  four  subclasses,  all  of 
which  have  enjoyed  a continuous  history  from  the  early  Devonian 
onward  to  the  present  day.  These  subclasses  are  known  under 
the  following  designations : ( i ) The  Elasmobranchii,  including 

modern  sharks  and  rays;  (2)  Holocephali,  or  Chimaeroids;  (3) 
Dipnoi  (Dipneusti),  or  Lung-fishes;  and  (4)  Teleostomi,  in- 
cluding ganoids  and  modern  bony  fishes.  Only  the  last-named 
of  these  grand  divisions  is  represented  in  the  Triassic  rocks  of 
the  Atlantic  border  region,  and  of  the  two  orders  embraced  by 
it,  the  first  (Crossopterygii)  is  represented  by  a solitary  family 
and  genus,  and  the  second  (Actinopterygii)  by  five  genera  be- 
longing to  three  different  families.  The  taxonomic  relations  of 
these  families  and  genera  are  graphically  illustrated  in  the  fol- 
lowing scheme : — 


Subclass 

Orders 

Suborders 

Families  and  Genera 

Crossopterygii 

Actinistia 

Coelacanthidse 
1.  Dipiurus 

Teleostomi 

1 

f Chondrostei 

( Catopteridse 
•<  2.  Catopterus 

( 3.  Dictyopyge 

Actinopterygii 

\ 

Protospondyli 

L 

f Semionotidse 
| 4.  Acentrophorus 

5.  Semionotus 

| Eugnathidse 
L 6.  Ptycholepis 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing  table  that  the  fauna  with 
which  we  have  to  deal  is  relatively  undiversified,  and  consists  of 
surprisingly  few  elements  as  compared  with  contemporaneous 
fish  faunas  of  other  regions.  The  inference  to  be  drawn  is  that 
these  peculiarities  are  in  all  likelihood  dependent  upon  the  nature 
of  the  environment  — that  is  to  say,  upon  the  absence  of  marine 
conditions  over  the  area  inhabited  by  this  fauna.  The  evidence 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


21 


\ 


which  compels  us  to  regard  the  sediments  in  question  as  a non- 
marine facies  of  the  Trias  does  not  proceed  primarily  from  the 
fossil  fishes  themselves.  On  the  contrary,  the  North  American 
species  of  Semionotus,  Ptycholepis , and  Diplurus  are  so  closely 
affiliated  with  European  “ geminate  types,”  to  employ  Jordan’s 
term,1  which  occur  in  the  marine  Trias,  that  it  is  impossible  to 
suppose  that  there  were  any  great  physiological  differences  be- 
tween them.  Hence  there  would  be  no  reason  in  the  absence  of 
other  evidence  to  believe  that  that  they  were  adapted  to  a different 
habitat.2 3 *. 

While  there  is  nothing  in  the  character  of  the  fossil  fishes 
which  would  prove  conclusively  whether  the  deposits  were 
formed  in  salt  or  brackish  or  fresh  water,  the  physical  character 
of  the  deposits  and  the  fossils  other  than  fishes  found  in  them 
make  it  substantially  certain  that  the  deposits  are  not  marine.5 
No  corals,  echinoderms,  or  brachiopods  have  been  found  in  the 
Triassic  in  Connecticut  or  in  any  other  of  the  Triassic  basins 
of  eastern  North  America.  Mollusks  are  very  few,  and  most 
of  those  found  are  undoubtedly  fresh-water  forms.  A very  few 
marine  mollusks,  it  is  claimed,  have  been  found  in  the  Triassic 
of  Pennsylvania.  A few  Crustacea,  probably  fresh-water  or 
brackish-water  forms,  have  been  found  in  some  of  the  southern 
Triassic  basins,  though  not  in  Connecticut.  A few  insect  larvae 
have  been  found.  For  the  rest  the  fossils  of  the  formation  con- 
sist of  land  plants  and  tracks  of  reptiles  and  amphibians,  with  a 
few  skeletons  of  reptiles.  Such  an  assemblage  of  fossils  makes 
it  clear  that  the  formation  is  not  marine,  though  the  presence 
of  a few  marine  shells  (if  those  shells  are  rightly  identified) 
indicate  conditions  in  part  estuarine. 

Until  recently  the  opinion  has  been  generally  held  that  the 
deposits  of  the  Triassic  of  eastern  North  America  were  formed 
in  tidal  estuaries  whose  waters  for  the  most  part  were  brackish 
or  nearly  fresh.  It  seems  probable,  however,  that  the  deposits 

1 Jordan,  D.  S.,  The  Law  of  Geminate  Species.  Am.  Nat.,  1908,  xlii,  pp.  73-80. 

2 De-Alessandri  remarks  as  follows  regarding  the  conditions  under  which  the  strata 

at  Besano  were  deposited:  “ I caratteri  litologici  infatti  dimostrano  come  i depositi 

costituenti  la  formazione  raibliana  di  Besano  debbono  in  parte  ascriversi  ad  azione 
organica  e che  essi  si  costituivano  poco  lungi  dalle  coste.  E l’esame  della  sua 
ittiofauna  ....  conferma  appunto  la  natura  costiera  del  giacimento.” 

3 Rice  and  Gregory,  Manual  of  the  Geology  of  Connecticut,  pp.  166-179  (State 

Geol.  and  Nat.  Hist.  Surv.,  Bull.  6.) 


22 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 


were  not  formed  in  continuous  water  bodies  coextensive  with  the 
areas  occupied  by  the  deposits;  but  that  they  include  confluent 
alluvial  fans  formed  by  torrents  descending  from  the  mountain 
walls  at  the  margin  of  the  area,  fluvial  deposits  formed  by  rivers 
migrating  over  the  lowland,  lacustrine  deposits  in  places  where 
the  drainage  was  obstructed,  with  probably  estuarine  deposits 
in  parts  of  the  area  that  were  covered  by  tidal  waters,  and 
very  likely  eolian  deposits  over  parts  that  were  dry  land.  Geol- 
ogists have  recently  come  to  appreciate  the  importance  of  such 
“ continental  ” deposits.1 

We  have  next  to  consider  the  question  of  the  position  occu- 
pied in  the  series  of  Triassic  rocks  by  the  fish-bearing  beds  in 
the  local  section,  and  also  the  ancillary  query  as  to  the  con- 
temporaneity of  deposits  in  the  Connecticut  Valley  and  the  New 
York-Virginia  basin.  For  a solution  of  these  problems  extended 
comparisons  are  necessary  with  related  faunas  of  other  regions, 
wheresoever  they  may  be  found;  and,  as  this  phase  of  the  dis- 
cussion has  received  very  little  attention  heretofore,  we  may  be 
permitted  to  inquire  into  the  matter  somewhat  fully.  This  will 
be  the  object  of  the  following  section. 

lj.  V.  Lewis,  Origin  and  Relations  of  the  Newark  Rocks,  pp.  102-108  (Geol. 
Surv.  N.  J.,  Ann.  Rept.  for  1906).  W.  M.  Davis,  The  Triassic  Formation  of  Connecti- 
cut, pp.  29-34  (18th  Ann.  Rept.,  U.  S.  Geol.  Surv.,  Part  ii).  J.  Barrell,  Mud-cracks  as 
a Criterion  of  Continental  Sedimentation  ( Journ . of  Geol.,  xiv.  pp.  524-568).  In  con- 
nection with  these  writings  one  may  consult  several  recent  articles  by  J.  Lomas  who 
interprets  the  British  Trias  as  “ filled-in  desert  lakes  ” ( Proc . Liverpool  Geol.  Soc., 
1907,  p.  183);  also  the  Trias  Reports  of  the  British  Assoc.  Adv.  Sci.;  and  Professor 
Bonney’s  paper  On  the  Origin  of  the  Trias  {Proc.  Yorkshire  Geol.  Soc.,  1906,  xvi, 
p.  1). 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


23 


II. 

GEOLOGIC  CORRELATION  OF  THE  CONNECTICUT 
VALLEY  FISH-BEARING  BEDS. 

The  general  consensus  of  opinion  among  geologists  who  have 
studied  the  Triassic  rocks  of  eastern  North  America  is  that  the 
sediments  were  deposited  more  or  less  contemporaneously  in  a 
number  of  isolated  basins  or  troughs,  these  depressions  occurring 
at  intervals  (rather  than  extending  continuously)  along  the 
Atlantic  border  from  Nova  Scotia  to  South  Carolina.  As  to  the 
period  of  deposition  represented  by  these  sediments,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  best  authorities  they  are  referred  to  the  uppermost  division 
of  the  Triassic  system,  that  which  in  European  geology  is  termed 
the  Keuper.  This  opinion,  be  it  observed,  has  rested  hitherto  al- 
most exclusively  upon  the  evidence  of  paleobotany.  And  not  un- 
naturally, owing  to  the  prevailing  dearth  of  marine  invertebrates, 
which  always  afford  the  most  reliable  indication  of  the  age  of 
strata. 

In  view  of  the  almost  total  absence  of  the  latter  class  of 
fossils,  it  is  pointed  out  by  Professors  Rice  and  Gregory  in  their 
“ Manual  of  the  Geology  of  Connecticut”  (p.  182),  that  the  best 
paleontological  evidence  for  purposes  of  correlation  which  is 
here  available  is  that  “ afforded  by  comparison  of  the  fossil 
plants,  which  occur  abundantly  in  some  areas  of  the  formation, 
particularly  in  the  Richmond  area,  with  the  fossil  plants  of  some 
of  the  European  strata.”  The  results  of  such  comparison  show, 
as  stated  by  these  authors,  “ that  the  flora  of  these  sandstones 
finds  its  nearest  equivalent  in  that  of  the  Keuper,  the  uppermost 
division  of  the  European  Trias.  The  indications  afforded  by  the 
fishes  and  reptiles,  though  more  scanty,  are  in  harmony,  so  far 
as  they  go,  with  the  evidence  of  the  plants.”  In  like  manner 
Professor  Lester  F.  Ward,  writing  in  1891,  expressed  the  view 
that  the  flora  of  the  New  York- Virginia  area  fixes  the  horizon 
of  the  so-called  “ Newark  formation  ” “ with  almost  absolute 


24  CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 

certainty  at  the  summit  of  the  Triassic  system,  and  narrows  the 
discussion  down  chiefly  to  the  verbal  question  whether  it  shall 

be  called  Rhaetic  or  Keuper The  beds  that  seem  to 

be  most  nearly  identical,  so  far  as  the  plants  are  concerned,  are 
those  of  Lunz,  in  Austria,  and  of  Neue  Welt,  in  Switzerland. 
These  have  been  placed  by  the  best  European  geologists  in  the 
Upper  Keuper.  Our  American  Trias  can  scarcely  be  lower  than 
this,  and  it  probably  cannot  be  higher  than  the  Rhaetic  beds  of 
Bavaria.”1 

Professor  J.  S.  Newberry  reached  a similar  conclusion  in  re- 
gard to  the  homotaxial  relations  of  the  “ Newark  ” series  of  the 
Atlantic  border  region,2  but  it  is  rather  singular  that  his  reference 
of  these  beds  to  the  uppermost  Trias  was  based  almost  entirely 
upon  the  evidence  furnished  by  fossil  plants,  whereas  that  af- 
forded by  the  fishes  was  in  part  neglected,  in  part  misinterpreted. 
This  accomplished  student  of  paleichthyology  was  clearly  in 
error,  as  will  presently  appear,  in  supposing  that  the  fishes  of 
the  Newark  system  are  “ not  nearly  related  to  those  of  any 
European  formation,”  and  he  failed  even  to  recognize  the 
identity  between  the  so-called  “ Ischypterus”  of  Egerton  and 
Agassiz’s  genus  Semionotus. 

As  early  as  1850  Professor  Louis  Agassiz  declared  that  in 
his  opinion  the  fossil  fishes  from  the  Virginia  coal  field,  and 
“ from  the  so-called  New  Red  Sandstone  [of  New  Jersey  and 
New  England],  indicate  an  age  intermediate  between  the 
European  New  Red  and  the  Oolite.”  3 Subsequently  he  modified 
this  view  so  far  as  to  state  that  the  fossils  in  question  are  the 
equivalent  neither  of  the  Triassic  fishes  of  southern  Germany, 
nor  of  those  from  the  English  Lias,  wherefore  he  referred  the 

1 Ward,  L.  F.,  The  Plant-bearing  Deposits  of  the  American  Trias.  Bull.  Geol.  Soc. 
Am,.,  1891,  iii,  pp.  23-31. — Idem,  Principles  and  Methods  of  Geologic  Correlation 
by  means  of  Fossil  Plants.  Am.  Geol.,  1891,  ix,  pp.  34-47. 

Writing  three  years  earlier  than  Professor  Ward,  the  Austrian  geologist,  D.  Stur, 
concluded  from  the  evidence  of  fossil  plants  that  the  Virginia  coal-field  area  is  the 
precise  equivalent  of  the  German  Lettenkohle,  which,  according  to  some  geologists, 
immediately  underlies  the  Keuper,  while  by  others  it  is  regarded  as  the  lowest  division 
of  the  Keuper,  just  as  the  Rhaetic  is  sometimes  incorporated  with  the  Keuper  as 
its  uppermost  member.  The  title  of  his  paper  is  as  follows:  “ Die  Lunzer-  (Letten- 

kohlen-)  Flora  in  den  * older  Mesozoic  beds  of  the  Coalfield  of  eastern  Virginia.’  ” 
Verh.  Geol.  Reichsanst.,  1888,  no.  10,  pp.  203-217. 

2 Newberry,  J.  S.,  The  Fauna  and  Flora  of  the  Trias  of  New  Jersey  and  the  Con- 
necticut Valley.  Trans.  N.  Y.  Acad.  Sci.,  1887,  vi,  pp.  124-128. 

8 Agassiz,  L.,  Proc.  Am.  Assoc.  Adv.  Sci.,  1850,  iv,  p.  276. 


No.  18.  ] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


25 


Newark  rocks  to  a time  interval  between  the  Trias  and  Lias, 
for  which  there  is  no  corresponding  European  expression.1 

Most  recently  of  all  it  has  been  claimed  by  the  present  writer,2 
in  contrast  to  the  views  of  Agassiz  and  Newberry,  that  the 
Newark  fish  fauna  of  the  Atlantic  border  region  does,  in  reality, 
manifest  rather  close  relationship  to  those  of  certain  European 
formations ; and  in  particular  that  a marked  correspondence 
exists  between  it  and  the  assemblage  that  is  known  from  the  top- 
most member  of  the  Alpine  Muschelkalk  — that  is  to  say,  the 
summital  portion  of  the  Middle  Trias  as  developed  in  the 
Mediterranean  region.  The  precise  horizon  from  which  the 
foreign  assemblage  in  question  has  been  obtained  is  the  so-called 
Perledo  limestone,  on  the  eastern  verge  of  Lake  Como,  in 
Lombardy,  and  usually  correlated  with  the  base  of  the  Buchen- 
stein  beds.3  By  some  authors  the  latter  are  referred  to  the  base 
of  the  Ladinian,  by  others  — and  these  would  seem  to  be  in 
the  minority  — to  the  summit  of  the  Virglorian  (zone  of 
Ceratites  trinodosus).  Under  these  names,  Ladinian  and  Vir- 
glorian, are  understood  respectively  the  upper  and  lower  mem- 
bers of  the  Alpine  Muschelkalk,  where,  as  is  well  known,  a three- 
fold division  such  as  characterizes  the  deposits  of  Germany 
north  of  the  Alpine  region  is  not  observable.4  The  position  of 
the  Buchenstein  limestone,  and  also  of  the  higher  (Keuper) 
fish-bearing  beds  of  Besano,  Raibl,  Seefeld,  etc.,  as  compared 
with  the  Anglo-German  Trias,  is  shown  in  the  subjoined  table. 
This  is  constructed  more  especially  after  the  writings  of  Baron 
F.  von  Huene  on  the  British,  and  those  of  Professors  Haug, 
Arthaber  and  others  on  the  Alpine  Trias.5 

1 Agassiz,  L.,  Proc.  Am.  Acad.,  1852-57,  iii,  p.  69. 

2 Geol.  Surv.  N.  J .,  Ann.  Rep.  for  1904  (1905),  pp.  70,  72. 

3 A convenient  geological  guide  for  the  Como  section  will  be  found  in  chapter  1 
of  Dr  A.  Tornquist’s  “ Fiihrer  durch  das  oberitalienische  Seengebirge,”  forming 
volume  9 of  the  Sammlung  geclogischer  Fiihrer  (Berlin,  1902). 

4 “ Le  Trias  moyen  comprend,  comme  on  sait,  deux  etages:  le  Virglorien  Ren. 

(=  Recoarien  Bittn.,  Anisien  Mojs.,  Waag.,  Dien.),  et  le  Ladinien  Bittn.” — E.  Haug, 
in  Bull.  Soc.  Geol.  France,  1906,  ser.  4,  vi,  p.  368. 

5 A generalized  section  of  the  Alpine  Trias  is  given  at  page  254  of  G.  von  Artha- 
ber’s  treatise,  incorporated  with  the  second  part  of  Freeh’s  “ Lethaea  Geognostica  ” 
(Heft  2,  1905),  and  a more  detailed  section  of  the  Como  district  at  page  399  of  the 
same  work.  Heft  1 of  this  volume  contains  an  introduction,  by  the  editor,  to  the 
study  of  the  Mesozoic  and  Trias,  and  a description  of  the  Continental  Trias  by 

E.  Phillippi  in  collaboration  with  other  authors  (1903).  See  also  the  following  by 

F.  von  Huene:  “ Eine  Zusammenstellung  liber  die  englische  Trias  und  das  Alter 

ihrer  Fossilien.  Centralbl.  f.  Mineral.  Geol.  Pal.,  1908,  pp.  9-17.  A slightly  different 
arrangement  is  indicated  in  the  table  given  at  p.  29  of  G.  De-Alessandri’s  memoir  on 
the  Triassic  Fishes  of  Lombardy,  1910. 


26 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY. 


Correlation  Scheme  of  Anglo-German  and  Alpine  Trias. 


TRIAS 

GREAT  BRITAIN 

GERMANY 

ALPINE  REGION 

Rhaetic 

Rhaetic 

Rhaetic 

Upper 

Keuper  marl 
(Upper  Keuper 
sandstone) 

Upper  \ 

Middle  V Keuper 
Lower  ) 

Alpine 

Keuper 

f Hauptdolomit  (Stein- 
mergelkeuper)  1 
St.  Cassian  beds 
Raibl  beds  (Salz- 
keuper)2 

Middle 

Lower  Keuper 
sandstone 

Lettenkohle 

Wengen  Beds 

Lower  ) 

Ladinian 

(Buchenstein  beds)3 

Lower 

Upper  variegated 
sandstone 
Pebble  beds 
Lower  variegated 
sandstone  (Bunter) 

Virglorian 

M?ddle  t Bu°tsand' 

Lower)  steln 

Werfenian  (Werfen  beds) 

Since  the  earlier  studies  of  the  Perledo  fish  fauna  by  Bellotti 
and  Deecke,  the  relations  of  some  of  its  component  elements 
have  been  more  accurately  determined  by  different  spcialists, 
with  the  result  that  it  is  now  possible  to  make  more  exact  com- 
parisons between  the  Lombardy  fauna  and  our  own  Triassic 
fauna.  The  following  revised  list  of  species,  which  agrees  in 
the  main  with  a similar  one  compiled  by  De-Alessandri,  takes 
into  account  all  of  the  published  writings  on  Lombardy  fish 
remains. 

Revised  List  of  Triassic  Fishes  occurring  in  the  Ladinian 
(Alpine  Middle  Trias)  of  Perledo,  Lombardy. 

Crossopterygii. 

Family  Ccelacanthhle. 

i.  Heptanema  paradoxum  Bellotti. 


» Fish-bearing  localities  of  Seefeld,  Tirol ; Hallein,  Salzburg;  and  Giffoni,  Italy. 
9 Fish-bearing  localities  of  Besano,  Lombardy;  and  Raibl,  Carinthia  (Austria). 

• Fish-bearing  locality  of  Perledo,  on  Lake  Como,  Lombardy. 


No.  i8.j 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


27 


Actinopterygii. 

Family  Catopterid^e. 

2.  Perleidus  alt  ole  pis  (Deecke). 

Family  Belonorhynchid^e. 

3.  Belonorhynchus  macro cephalus  Deecke  (=  B.  ro- 

bustus  Bellotti  MS.). 

Family  Semionotid^e. 

4.  Semionotus  balsami  Bellotti. 

5.  Colobodus  sp. 

6.  Archceosemionotus  connectens  Deecke. 

Family  Macrosemihle. 

7.  Ophiopsis  lepturus  (Bellotti). 

8.  Ophiopsis  lariensis  De-Alessandri. 

Family  Eugnathid^e. 

9.  Eugnathns  hermesii  (Bellotti). 

10.  Eugnathus  trotti  (Balsamo-Crivelli). 

11.  Heterolepidotus  pectoralis  (Bellotti). 

12.  Heterolepidotus  serratus  (Bellotti). 

13.  Heterolepidotus  taramellii  De-Alessandri. 

14.  Heterolepidotus  brevis  (Bellotti). 

15.  Heterolepidotus  (?)  egidii-venantii  De-Alessandri. 

16.  Heterolepidotus  bellottii  De-Alessandri. 

17.  Allolepidotus  bellottii  (Riippell). 

18.  Allolepidotus  nothosomoides  Deecke.1 

19.  Allolepidotus  rue ppelli  (Bellotti). 

Family  Pachycormid^e. 

20.  Ur  ole  pis  macroptera  Bellotti. 

21.  Ur  ole  pis  microlepidota  Bellotti  (including  the  so- 

called  U.  elongata  Bellotti). 

1 The  status  of  Deecke’s  genus  Allolepidotus  is  open  to  some  question.  By 
Gorjanovic-Kramberger  it  is  regarded  as  a subgenus  of  Heterolepidotus.  Compare 
this  author’s  memoir  on  “ Die  obertriadische  Fischfauna  von  Hallein  in  Salzburg  ” 
( Beitr . Pal'dont.  u.  Geol.,  1905,  xviii,  p.  212). 


28 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 


Family  Pholidophorid^e. 

21.  Pholidophorus  curioni  (Heckel). 

22.  Pholidophorus  oblongus  Bellotti. 

23.  Prohalecites  porroi  (Bellotti). 

24.  Pholidopleurus  sp. 

Family  Leptolepid^e. 

25.  Leptolepis  sp. 

It  will  next  be  in  order  to  present  a list  of  the  species  com- 
posing the  Triassic  fish  fauna  of  the  Atlantic  border  region  in 
this  country,  for  the  purpose  of  comparison  with  the  above.  In 
this  list  the  names  of  those  species  occurring  in  the  Connecticut 
Valley  area  are  denoted  by  an  asterisk. 

List  of  Fossil  Fishes  occurring  in  the  “ Newark  ” or 
Upper  Triassic  Rocks  of  Eastern  North  America. 

Crossopterygii. 

Family  Ccelacanthid^e. 

1.  *Diplurus  longicaudatus  Newberry. 

Actinopterygii. 

Family  Catopterid^e. 

2.  *Catopterus  gracilis  J.  H.  Redfield. 

3.  *Catopterus  redheldi  Egerton. 

4.  *Dictyopyge  macrura  (W.  C.  Redfield). 

Family  Semionothle. 

5.  *Acentrophorus  chicopensis  Newberry. 

6.  ^Semionotus  agassizii  (W.  C.  Redfield). 

7.  Semionotus  brauni  (Newberry). 

8.  Semionotus  elegans  (Newberry). 

9.  * Semionotus  fultus  (Agassiz). 

10.  Semionotus  gigas  (Newberry). 

11.  Semionotus  lineatus  (Newberry). 

12.  * Semionotus  micropterus  (Newberry). 

13.  * Semionotus  ovatus  (W.  C.  Redfield). 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


29 


14.  Semionotus  robustus  (Newberry). 

15.  * Semionotus  tenuiceps  (Agassiz). 

Family  Eugnathim:. 

16.  *Ptycholepis  marshi  Newberry. 

On  comparing  the  foregoing  lists,  it  appears  that  both  faunas 
— ’the  Lombardy  and  the  eastern  North  American  — are  made 
up  exclusively  of  ganoids ; and  of  these  a single  Crossopterygian 
family  is  represented  in  each  case,  while  the  remainder  belong 
to  the  Actinopterygian  order.  Sharks  and  rays,  Chimseroids 
and  Lung-fishes,  are  conspicuously  absent  from  both  regions. 
Of  the  two  families  common  to  both  provinces,  of  which  Semiono- 
tus and  Catopterus  are  representatives,  the  former  is  in  each  case 
the  most  important  in  point  of  numerical  abundance,  and  is  repre- 
sented by  the  largest  number  of  species.  Dictyopyge  is  not 
common  to  both  regions,  nor  conclusive  as  to  age,  since  it  ranges 
from  the  Bunter  to  the  Upper  Keuper  in  the  Anglo-German 
Trias,  and  is  known  also  from  the  Karoo  formation  of  British 
South  Africa  and  the  Upper  Trias  of  New  South  Wales.  Two  of 
the  remaining  genera  of  the  American  Trias  are  exceedingly 
rare  in  the  Occidental  region,  each  being  represented  by  a solitary 
species.  These  are  Acentrophorus  and  Ptycholepis.  Of  the 
former  it  is  to  be  observed  that  it  is  apparently  capable,  despite 
its  imperfect  preservation,  of  being  included  in  the  same  family 
as  Semionotus;  and  as  for  the  latter,  of  which  only  a few  examples 
have  been  found  at  a single  locality,  near  Durham,  Connecticut, 
it  is  significant  to  note  its  occurrence  at  a slightly  higher  horizon 
in  the  Alpine  Keuper  (Besano  and  Raibl),  where  it  is  likewise 
accompanied  by  members  of  the  Semionotidse. 

From  the  facts  that  have  just  been  set  forth  one  may  infer 
that  the  so-called  “ Newark  ” fish  fauna  of  this  country  is  of 
more  or  less  composite  character,  in  that  its  chief  constituents, 
or  their  analogues  at  least,  are  distributed  between  the  middle 
(Ladinian)  and  upper  (Keuper)  divisions  of  the  Alpine  Trias. 
That  a general  correspondence  exists  between  the  Atlantic  border 
fish  fauna  and  that  of  the  Middle  Trias  of  Lombardy  is  now 
sufficiently  evident;  such  relations  as  can  be  predicated  between 
the  former  and  various  Keuper  fish  faunas  of  the  Mediterranean 


30 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 


region  (southern  and  eastern  Alps)  will  be  apparent  to  students 
from  the  following  tabulation. 


Fish  Fauna  of  the  Raibl  Beds  (Base  of  the  Alpine  Keuper) 
in  Italy  and  Austria. 


Besano,  Lombardy. 

Raibl,  Carinthia. 

Elasmobranchii. 

1.  Acrodus  bicarinatus 

Bassani. 

2.  Hybodus  sp.  ind. 

Crossopterygii. 

3.  Nemacanthus  tuberculatus 

Family  Ccelacanthid,e. 

Bassani. 

1.  Graphiurus  callopterus 

4.  Leiacanthus  pinii  Bassani. 

Kner. 

5.  Leptacanthus  cornalice 
Bellotti. 

Actinopterygii. 

Actinopterygii. 

Family  Belonorhynchhle. 

Family  Belonorhynchhxe. 

6.  B elonorhynchus  curionii 

2.  B elonorhynchus  striolatus 

(Bellotti). 

Bronn. 

7.  B elonorhynchus  inter- 

3. B elonorhynchus  sp. 

medins  Bassani. 

(=  Teleosaurus  tenui- 

8.  B elonorhynchus  stoppanii 

striatus  Kner  err  ore). 

Bassani. 

9.  B elonorhynchus  striolatus 
Bronn. 

Family  Semionotid^e. 

Family  Semionothle. 

10.  Colob odus  bassani 

4.  Colobodus  ornatus 

De-Alessandri. 

Agassiz. 

11.  Colob  odus  varius  Giebel 

( = Gyrolepis  sp.  Bel- 
lotti  MS.  tide  Bassani). 

12.  Colob  odus  triasicus 

(Bassani)  ( =Lepido - 
tus  triasicus  Bassani). 

13.  Allolepidotus  sp.  ind. 

14.  Dapedius  sp.  ind.  (=  Te- 

tragonolepis  sp.  Bas- 
sani). 

Family  Macrosemihle. 

Family  Macrosemiid^e. 

15.  Ophiopsis  bellotti  (Bas- 

5. Orthurus  sturii  Kner. 

sani)  (=Nothosomus 
bellotti  Bassani). 

No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


31 


Besano,  Lombardy. 

Raibl,  Carinthia. 

Family  Eugnathid^e. 

Family  Eugnathid^e. 

16. 

Ptycholepis  barboi 

6. 

Ptycholepis  avus  Kner. 

Bassani. 

7- 

Ptycholepis  tenuisquamata 

17- 

Heterolepidotus  gibbus 

Kner. 

(Bassani)  ( =Semiono - 
tus  gibbus  Bassani  non 
Seebach). 

Family  Pholidophorhle. 

Family  Pholidophorhle. 

18. 

Pholidophorus  barazzetti 

8. 

Pholidophorus  bronni 

Bassani. 

Kner. 

19. 

Pholidophorus  besanensis 

9- 

Pholidopleurus  typus 

Bassani. 

Bronn. 

20. 

Pholidophorus  cf.  bronni 

10. 

Peltopleurus  splendens 

Kner. 

Kner. 

21. 

Pholidophorus  meridensis 

11. 

Peltopleurus  (?)  gracilis 

De-Alessandri. 

Kner. 

22. 

Pholidopleurus  typus 

12. 

Thoracopterus  apus  Kner. 

Bronn. 

13- 

Thoracopterus  niederristi 

23- 

Peltopleurus  splendens 

Bronn. 

Kner. 

14- 

Prohalecites  microlepido- 

tus  (Kner). 

Family  PachYcormihe. 

15- 

Megalopterus  raiblianus 

24. 

Urolepis  sp.  ind. 

Kner. 

The  above  lists  have  been  compiled  chiefly  from  the  writings 
of  Kner1  and  Bassani,2  and  the  more  recent  memoir  of  De- 
Allessandri  (1910).  These  assemblages  from  the  marine  Keuper , 
of  southern  Europe  are  instructive  as  showing  the  continued  im- 
portance of  the  Semionotidae,  and  their  accompaniment  by 
Ptycholepis  and  a single  Crossopterygian  genus  different  from 
either  our  own  Diplurus  or  the  unique  H eptanema  of  Perledo. 


1 Several  articles  on  the  fossil  fishes  from  Raibl,  contained  in  vols.  53,  55,  and  56 
of  the  Sitzungsber.  Akad.  Wiss.,  Wien.,  1866-67. 

2 Bassani,  F.,  Sui  fossili  e sull’eta  degli  schisti  bituminosi  triasici  in  Lombardia. 
Atti  della  Soc.  Ital.  di  Sci.  Nat.,  1886,  xxix,  pp.  15-72. 

Compare  also  the  lists  given  by  Baron  Achille  de  Zigno,  in  his  “ Pesci  fossili  di 
Lumezzane  in  Val  Trompia  (Lombardia).”  Mem.  R.  Accad.  dei  Lincei,  1891,  anno 
287,  p.  5.  A comparative  table  of  the  Raibl  and  Lombardy  section  will  be  found  at 
page  325  of  Arthaber’s  work  on  the  Alpine  Trias,  in  Freeh’s  “ Lethaea  Geognostica.” 
For  a history  of  previous  attempts  at  a correlation  of  the  Besano  and  Raibl  faunas, 
see  page  62  of  Bassani’s  paper  above  cited. 


32 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 


Catopterus  is  indeed  absent,  but  a possible  offshoot  from  the 
ancient  Palseoniscoids  is  found  in  the  Pachycormid  genus  U role pis. 

Thus  far  we  have  been  able  to  trace  a certain  similarity  or 
at  least  a not  remote  correspondence,  between  our  local 
“ Newark  ” fish  fauna  and  various  assemblages  belonging  to  the 
Upper  Muschelkalk  and  Lower  Keuper  of  the  European  marine 
Trias.  Extending  now  the  range  of  our  comparison  to  a higher 
horizon,  the  fact  cannot  be  gainsaid  that  there  is  in  these  later 
Mediterranean  fish  faunas  appreciably  less  resemblance  to  that  of 
the  Atlantic  border.  The  next  higher  horizon  with  which  com- 
parison of  this  nature  is  possible  is  the  Hauptdolomit  of  various 
parts  of  Austria  and  Italy,  a formation  which  is  homotaxial  with 
the  Anglo-German  Upper  Keuper  (Steinmergelkeuper),  and  is 
immediately  succeeded  by  the  Rhaetic.  Everywhere  in  this  later 
horizon,  however,  we  meet  with  a more  advanced  expression  of 
piscine  evolution,  and  the  character  of  the  fauna  acquires  a 
decided  Liassic  aspect.  We  have,  in  fact,  passed  the  limital 
division  of  the  Keuper  with  which  our  “ Newark  ” fish  fauna  can 
be  most  satisfactorily  correlated,  the  ulterior  bound  being  the 
Raibl  beds  of  the  Lower  Keuper.  This  tends,  therefore,  to  con- 
firm the  conclusion  already  put  forward  that  the  Triassic  fish 
fauna  of  eastern  North  America  is  of  more  or  less  manifold 
nature,  and  corresponds  in  a general  way  to  the  interval  between 
the  uppermost  Muschelkalk  and  the  basal  division  of  the  Keuper 
in  the  Mediterranean  region. 

A tabulation  of  the  Upper  Keuper  fish  fauna  of  southern 
Europe  is  offered  at  this  point  by  way  of  illustrating  its  more 
advanced  grade  in  the  scale  of  development.  This  has  been 
compiled  from  both  the  older  and  more  recent  literature,  in- 
cluding the  writings  of  Kner,1  Deecke,2  de  Zigno,3  Bassani,4 

1 Kner,  R.,  Die  fossilen  Fische  der  Asphaltschiefer  von  Seefeld  in  Tirol.  Sitzungs- 
ber.  Akad.  Wiss.  Wien.,  1866,  liv,  pp.  303-334-  Nachtrag.  Ibid.,  1867,  lvi,  pt.  1, 
pp.  898-909. 

2 Deecke,  W.,  Ueber  Fische  aus  verschiedenen  Horizonten  der  Trias.  Palaeontogr. 

1889,  xxxv,  pp.  97-138.  . _ . , , . 

3 De  Zigno,  A.,  Pesci  fossili  di  Lumezzane  in  Val  Trompia.  Mem.  R.  Accad.  de  1 

Lincei,  1891,  anno  287,  pp.  1-10.  . 

4 Bassani,  F.,  Sui  fossili  e sull’  eta  degli  schisti  bituminosi  di  Monte  Pettine 
presso  Giffoni  Valle  Piana  in  Provincia  Salerno  (Dolomia  principale).  Mem.  della 
Soc.  Ital.  delle  Sci.  (detta  dei  XL),  1893,  ser.  3,  ix,  no.  3-  Idem,  La  Ittiofauna 
della  Dolomia  principale  di  Giffoni  (prov.  di  Salerno).  Palaeontogr.  Italica,  1895,  h 
pp.  169-210.—  Idem,  Elenco  dei  Pesci  fossili  degli  schisti  bituminosi  triasici  di  Giffoni, 
nel  Salernitano.  Rend,  della  R.  Accad.  delle  Sci.  di  Napoli,  16  Dec.  1899. 


No.  18.  ] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


33 


Gorjanovic-Kramberger,1  De-Alessandri,2 3  and  others.  The  nu- 
merals indicate  the  number  of  species  represented  at  the  respec- 
tive localities,  which  are  as  follows : Lumezzane,  in  Val  Trompia, 
Lombardy;  Seefeld,  near  Innsbruck,  Tirol;  Hallein,  in  Salz- 
burg, Austria;  and  Giffoni,  in  the  Province  of  Salerno,  southern 
Italy. 


Comparative  Table  of  Hauptdolomit  Fish  Faunas. 


Genera 

Giffoni 

Hallein 

Seefeld 

Lumezzane 

Crossopterygii 
Fam.  CcELACANTH  IDAS 

i.  Undina 

1 

Actinopterygii 

Fam.  Belonorhynchida£ 

2.  Belonorhynchus 

I 

I 

Fam.  SEMIONOTIDiE 

3.  Semionotus 

I 

4.  Colobodus 

2 

2 

2 

2 

5.  Heterolepidotus 

. . 

2 

I 

6.  Dapedius 

1 

I 

I 

. . 

7.  Spaniolepis 

I 

Fam.  Macrosemiid^e 

8.  Ophiopsis 

I 

9.  Orthurus 

I 

Fam.  Pycnodontid^e 

10.  Mesodon 

1 

Fam.  Eugnathid^e 

11.  Eugnathus 

I 

I 

•• 

Fam.  Pholidophoridas 

12.  Pholidophorus 

3 

2 

4 

4 

13.  Peltopleurus 

1 

1 

14.  Thoracopterus 

1 

Total  number  of  species 

11 

II 

11 

7 

A final  word  may  now  be  said  concerning  the  relations  be- 
tween the  Atlantic  border  or  “ Newark  ” fish  fauna  and  the 
meagre  indications  of  Triassic  fish  life  that  have  been  obtained 

1 GorjanoviiSKramberger,  K.,  Die  obertriadische  Fischfauna  von  Hallein  in  Salz- 
burg. Beitr.  Paldont.  Geol.  1905,  xviii,  pp.  193-224. 

2 De-Alessandri,  G.,  Studii  sui  Pesci  Triasici  della  Lombardia.  Mem.  della  Soc.  Ital. 
di  Scienze  Naturali  e Museo  Civico  di  Storia  Nat.  di  Milano,  1910,  vii,  pp.  1-148. 

3 


34 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY. 


from  western  North  America.  Owing  to  the  well  known  in- 
timate connection  between  the  Upper  Trias  of  California  and 
that  of  southern  Europe  — the  region  which  Neumayr  years  ago 
called  the  “ central  Mediterranean,”  and  for  which  the  name 
“ Thetys  ” was  proposed  by  Suess  in  1894  — we  might  expect  on 
purely  a priori  grounds  to  find  a certain  resemblance  in  the 
character  of  the  vertebrate  faunas  of  the  two  regions.1 2 

The  scant  evidence  thus  far  obtained,  however,  at  least  as 
regards  the  fishes,  fails  to  justify  any  such  expectation.  From 
the  Lower  Trias  of  Idaho  have  been  described  a single  detached 
dermal  spine,  apparently  belonging  to  Aster  acanthus?  and  a 
few  fragmentary  remains  of  Crossopterygii,  which  are  possibly 
late  survivals  of  Paleozoic  families  (Rhizodontidse  and  Osteol- 
epidae).3  Elasmobranchs  and  effete  Crossopterygii  persist  even 
as  late  as  the  Upper  Trias  of  Shasta  county,  California,  where  re- 
mains of  Hybodus,  Acrodus , Holopty chius  and  Xenestes  have 
been  brought  to  light,  whose  number,  however,  all  told,  makes 
an  inconspicuous  showing.4 

Yet  another  sprinkling  of  ichthvic  indications  is  known  from 
the  Red  Beds  of  supposed  Triassic  age  (Shinarump  group)  in 
southwestern  Colorado  and  in  the  Kanab  Canyon  region  of  Utah 
and  Arizona.  Little  has  been  published  on  the  fossil  vertebrate 
remains  from  this  section,5  but,  so  far  as  the  fishes  are  concerned, 
it  is  clear  that  they  display  no  intimate  relations  with  those  of 
the  Atlantic  border  Trias.  On  the  contrary,  the  general  aspect 


1 In  regard  to  the  invertebrate  faunas,  Dr.  James  Perrin  Smith  has  the  following: 

“ The  most  interesting  fact  brought  out  by  a comparison  of  the  Upper  Trias  of 

California  with  that  of  India  and  the  Alpine  Mediterranean  region  is  its  near  rela- 
tionship with  the  latter,  most  genera  and  many  species  being  common  to  the  two 

regions.  . . . This  relationship  of  the  Californian  to  the  European  faunas  per- 

sists until  after  the  middle  of  the  Jurassic  formation,  when  the  Boreal  fauna  comes 
in.” — Journ.  Geol.,  1898,  vi,  p.  786. 

2 This  is  described  under  the  name  of  Cosmacanthus  by  H.  M.  Evans,  in  Bull.  Dept. 
Geol.  Univ.  of  Calif.,  1904,  iii,  p.  397. 

8 Goddard,  M.,  Fish  Remains  from  the  Marine  Lower  Trias  of  Aspen  Ridge,  Idaho. 
Bull.  Dept.  Geol.  Univ.  of  Calif.,  1907,  v,  p.  145. 

4 Wemple,  E.  M..  New  Cestraciont  teeth  from  the  West  American  Triassic.  Bull. 
Geol.  Dept.  Univ.  of  Calif.,  1906,  v,  no.  4,  p.  73. — Jordan,  D.  S.,  The  Fossil  Fishes 
of  California.  Ibid.,  1907,  v,  no.  7,  pp.  95-144. 

# The  chief  literary  references  are  collected  by  Dr.  Whitman  Cross  in  his  article 
on  “ The  Triassic  Portion  of  the  Shinarump  Group,  Powell,”  to  be  found  in  the 
Journal  of  Geology,  1908,  xvi,  pp.  97-123.  See  also  the  joint  paper  by  the  same 
author  and  E.  Howe,  entitled  “ Red  Beds  of  Southwestern  Colorado  and  their  Cor- 
relation.” Bull.  Geol.  Soc.  Am.,  1905,  xvi,  pp.  447-486. 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


35 


of  the  Shinarump  material  suggests  the  foreshadowing  of 
Jurassic  conditions,  and  on  that  account  the  fauna  announces 
itself  as  proemial,  to  employ  Dr.  Garke’s  expressive  term.  The 
condition  of  the  remains  from  the  Kanab  Canyon  region  is  ex- 
tremely fragmentary,  and  among  them  only  the  genus  Pholid- 
ophorus  and  certain  Lepidotidae  appear  to  be  tolerably  well 
indicated. 


36 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY. 


III.  GEOGRAPHY  OF  THE  TRIAS. 

“ It  is  the  soul  that  sees : the  outward  eyes 
Present  the  object,  but  the  mind  descries.” 

— Longfellow. 

In  this  section  it  is  not  at  all  within  our  purpose  to  enter  into 
an  elaborate  account  of  the  physical  conditions  prevailing  during 
the  initial  period  of  the  Mesozoic,  the  theme  being  in  itself  an 
intricate  one,  and  moreover,  that  phase  of  it  which  applies  to  our 
local  section  having  been  already  sufficiently  discussed.  Such  being 
the  case,  it  will  be  sufficient  merely  to  direct  attention  to  a con- 
tribution pertinent  to  this  topic,  and  one  which  contains  perhaps 
the  most  comprehensive  review  that  has  been  written  on  the 
faunal  geography  of  the  Upper  Trias.  We  refer  to  the  chapter 
on  “ The  Seas  of  the  Trias  Era/’  by  the  late  Professor  E. 
Mojsisovics,  Edler  von  Mojsvar,  in  his  memoir  on  Triassic 
Cephalopods  from  the  Himalayas,1  wherein  is  collected  practically 
all  that  is  known  of  the  distribution  and  relations  of  the  in- 
vertebrate faunas  of  this  era. 

From  this  memoir,  owing  to  its  relevancy  to  the  present  dis- 
cussion, we  have  ventured  to  extract  a paragraph  or  two  in  re- 
gard to  the  principal  regions  of  the  “ Central  Mediterranean 
Sea  ” of  Neumayr,  or  “ Thetys  ” of  Suess,  from  which  Triassic 
faunas  are  known.  So  different  from  one  another  in  character 
are  these  faunas  that  they  are  manifestly  to  be  regarded  as 
representing  ancient  geographic  regions.  These  provinces  are, 
in  the  language  of  their  chief  exponent  and  interpreter,  as 
follows : 

“ i.  Die  Mediterranprovinz, 

2.  die  germanische  Flachsee,  und 

3.  die  indische  Provinz.” 

Concerning  the  limits  of  these  provinces  the  author  remarks : 
“ Die  germanische  Flachsee  bildet  eine  Dependenz  der  Medi- 
terranprovinz, und  kann  als  ein  grosses  Aestuarium  aufgefasst 
werden,  welches  dem  ausgedehnten,  heute  im  atlantischen  Ocean 


1 Denkschr.  k.  k.  Akad.  Wiss.,  1896,  lxiii,  p.  687. 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


37 


versunlcenen  Continente  vorgelagert  war.  Diese  triadische 
‘Atlantis  ’ existirte  wahrscheinlich  bereits  am  Schluss  des  palao- 
zoischen  Zeitalters.1  Sie  reichte  im  Westen  vermuthlich  bis 
zum  heutigen  Nordamerica,2  welches  bekanntlich  auf  seiner 
Osthalfte  ausgedehnte  triadische  Binnensedimente  vom  Charakter 
des  germanischen  Buntsandsteines  und  Keupers  besitzt,  wahrend 
pelagische  Sedimente  der  Trias  bios  auf  dem  pacifischen  Abhange 
dieses  Continentes  anzutreffen  sind.” 

Expressed  in  English,  the  meaning  of  the  above  paragraph 
would  be  that  the  second  of  these  geographical  provinces  forms 
a restricted  area  of  the  first,  and  may  be  regarded  as  having 
formerly  been  a large  estuary  of  an  extensive  land  area  now 
submerged  beneath  the  Atlantic  Ocean.  This  hypothetical  Tri- 
assic  continent,  the  so-called  “Atlantis,”  probably  became  elevated 
above  sea  level  at  least  as  early  as  the  close  of  the  Paleozoic. 
It  presumably  extended  westward  to  the  present  continent  of 
North  America,  for  along  the  eastern  border  of  the  latter  are 
found  non-marine  Triassic  deposits  corresponding  to  the  central 
European  Buntsandstein  and  Keuper,  while  marine  Triassic  rocks 
occur  only  along  the  Pacific  slope.  [It  is  proper  to  point  out  that 
the  theory  of  a submerged  (t  Atlantis  ” is  by  no  means  universally 
held  among  ^nodern  geologists,  but  on  the  contrary  many  of  the 
foremost  authorities  are  firm  believers  in  the  permanence  of  con- 
tinental land  masses.] 

To  pursue  this  topic  of  paleogeography  a step  further,  it  is 
of  interest  to  recall  that  the  eastern  and  western  boundaries  of 
the  Triassic  Thetys  are  thus  delineated  by  Professor  James  P. 
Smith,  in  his  article  on  the  “ Classification  of  Marine  Trias  ” 
( Journ . of  Geol. , 1896,  iv,  p.  387)  : 

“ Along  the  western  borders  of  Thetys  were  deposited  the 
Triassic  sediments  of  the  Alps,  Spain,  southern  Italy,  the 

1 Suess,  Antlitz  der  Erde.,  ii,  p.  317. 

2 Einen  sicheren  Anhaltspunkt  fur  die  Annahme  eines  solchen  Continents  bieten 
auch  die  Pflanzenreste  dar,  welche  in  den  Kohlenfeldern  des  ostlichen  Virginiens 
gefunden  und  von  Stur  mit  den  Pflanzen  des  Lunzer  Sandsteins  (julische  Stufe) 
identificirt  wurden.  Vergl.  Stur , “Die  Lunzer- (Lettenkohlen-)  Flora  in  den  ‘older 
Mesozoic  beds  of  the  Coalfields  of  eastern  Virginia.’  ” Verh.  Geol.  Reichsanstalt , 1888, 
p.  203. 

Besides  the  paper  of  Stur’s  just  referred  to,  one  may  consult  the  following  by  F. 
Zeller,  which  contains  a comparison  with  the  Alpine  Trias:  Beitrage  zur  Kenntniss 

der  Lettenkohle  tind  des  Keupers  in  Schwaben.  Neues  Jahrb.  f.  Mineral,  u.  s.  ze.. 
Beilage-Bd.  xxv,  1908,  pp.  1-134.  His  correlation  of  the  fish-bearing  beds  of  the 
Alpine  Trias  is  essentially  the  same  as  that  adopted  in  the  present  Report. 


3» 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY. 


Balearic  Islands,  Sicily,  Hungary,  and  the  Balkan  Peninsula. 
This  region  was  named  by  Mojsisovics  the  Mediterranean  Trias 
province.  Most  of  the  faunas  of  the  Trias,  from  near  the  base  to 
the  top,  are  represented  in  this  region. 

To  the  east  the  Thetys  spread  out  to  the  waters  of  the  Indian 
region,  in  which  the  sediments  of  the  Himalayas  and  the  Salt 
Range  were  accumulated.  The  Indian  waters  joined  on  the 
north,  east  and  south  with  the  great  Arctic-Pacific  Trias  ocean, 
or  Arctis  of  Mojsisovics,  along  the  borders  of  which  were  de- 
posited the  sediments  of  northern  and  eastern  Siberia,  Spitz- 
bergen,  Japan,  Rotti,  New  Zealand,  New  Caledonia,  Peru  and 
western  North  America.  But  in  this  ocean  region  there  were 
many  provinces  as  yet  unknown,  or  only  vaguely  defined.” 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


39 


IV.  CONCERNING  EARLIER  INVESTIGATION  OF 
NORTH  AMERICAN  TRIASSIC  FISHES. 

“ In  den  Wissenschaften  ist  es  hochst  verdienstlich,  das  unzulangliche 
Wahre,  was  die  Alten  schon  besessen,  aufzusuchen  und  weiter  zu  fiihren.” 

— Goethe. 

American  vertebrate  paleontology  may  be  said  to  have  begun 
with  President  Thomas  Jefferson’s  description  of  fossil  elephant 
remains  from  Virginia1  in  1787,  and  the  bones  of  Megcdonyx, 
afterwards  named  M.  jeffersoni,  a dozen  years  later.2  One  has 
to  turn  back  a little  more  than  a century  earlier,  however,  for  the 
first  published  figure  of  an  American  fossil,  this  being  Ecphora 
quadricostata  from  the  Maryland  Miocene.3  The  earliest  records 
of  all  relating  to  the  discovery  of  fossil  vertebrate  remains  in 
the  western  hemisphere  date  from  the  time  of  Hernandez,  court 
physician  to  Philip  II,  and  other  Spanish  explorers  of  the  seven- 
teenth century.4 

We  cannot  be  sure  when  fossil  fishes  first  began  to  attract 
attention  in  this  country,  but  the  earliest  notices  regarding  them 
in  any  scientific  publication  fall  within  the  second  decade  of  the 
last  century,  and  relate  to  remains  discovered  in  the  Connecticut 
Valley  region.  Several  titles  are  comprised  in  these  early 
notices,  and  among  their  authors  occur  such  names  as  S.  L. 
Mitchell,  B.  Silliman  the  elder,  Edward  Hitchcock,  A.  Brong- 
niart,  W.  W.  Mather,  James  E.  Dekay,  and  others.  Per  contra , 

1 Notes  on  the  State  of  Virginia.  London,  1787. 

2 A Memoir  on  the  Discovery  of  certain  bones  of  a Quadruped  of  the  clawed  kind 
in  the  western  parts  of  Virginia.  Trans.  Amer.  Phil.  Soc.,  1799,  iv,  pp.  246-260. 
Dr.  O.  P.  Hay  is  authority  for  the-  statement  that  this  work  is  said  by  C.  G.  Giebel 
to  have  been  issued  in  1797. 

8 Lister,  M.,  Historia  sive  Synopsis  Methodic®  Conchyliorum.  London,  1685.  PI. 
1059,  fig.  2. 

4 References  to  old  Spanish  works  in  which  these  remains  are  attributed  to'  a race 
of  human  giants  are  given  in  the  second  volumes  respectively  of  Cuvier’s  “ Ossemens 
Fossiles  ” and  Humboldt’s  “ Cosmos.”  The  vulgar  interpretation,  which  is  ap- 
parently common  to  all  primitive  society,  ancient  and  modern,  finds  an  apt  illustra- 
tion in  the  Gigantomachia  of  classical  antiquity.  Consult  the  suggestive  article  by 
Dr.  Th.  Skouphos,  in  Comptes  rendus  Cong.  Inter.  d’Arch.,  Athens,  1905,  pp.  231-236. 
Also  one  by  E.  von  Lasaulx  on  the  Geology  of  the  Greeks  and  the  Romans,  in 
Abhandl.  Payer.  Akad.  Wissensch.,  1852,  vi,  pp.  517-566. 


40  CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 

the  occurrence  of  similar  remains  in  the  more  southerly  region 
does  not  seem  to  have  become  generally  known  until  toward 
the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Those  from  the  Virginia 
Coal  fields  were  studied  successively  by  the  Redfields,  father  and 
son,  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  Sir  Philip  Grey  Egerton,  and  Louis 
Agassiz ; and  a brief  mention  of  fragmentary  remains  from  North 
Carolina,  accompanied  by  a few  figures,  was  contributed  by 
Ebenezer  Emmons  during  the  late  fifties. 

It  is,  however,  to  William  C.  and  John  H.  Redfield,  who  wrote 
between  1837  and  1857,  that  we  are  indebted  for  the  first  really 
satisfactory  account  of  the  Triassic  fish  fauna  of  this  country, 
these  two  having  described  nearly  all  the  important  species. 
Their  results  are  embodied  in  ten  publications,  eight  by  the  elder, 
and  two  by  the  younger  author.  These  same  pioneers  also 
brought  together  an  important  collection,  of  which  a good  part 
is  still  preserved  in  the  Peabody  Museum  at  Yale  University,  and 
the  rest  is  unfortunately  destroyed  or  dissipated. 

By  far  the  most  signal  contribution  to  our  knowledge  of  Amer- 
ican Triassic  fishes  is  that  contained  in  Professor  J.  S.  Newberry’s 
“ Monograph  on  the  Fossil  Fishes  and  Fossil  Plants  of  New 
Jersey  and  the  Connecticut  Valley.”1  Several  new  species  of 
Semionotus  (described,  however,  under  the  title  Ischypterus) , 
Ptycholepis  and  Diplurus  were  established  by  him  upon  the 
evidence  of  tolerably  satisfactory  material,  and  one  doubtful 
form  was  referred  with  some  reservation  to  Acentrophorus,  a 
genus  that  is  otherwise  limited,  so  far  as  known,  to  the  Upper 
Permian.  This  elaborate  work  of  Professor  Newberry  still  re- 
mains our  chief  repository  of  information  in  regard  to  the  par- 
ticular subject  before  our  consideration. 

Since  Newberry’s  time  comparatively  little  has  been  added  to 
our  knowledge  of  the  Newark  fish  fauna,  except  in  the  way  of 
rectifying  some  minor  details.  An  important  memoir  on  the 
genus  Semionotus,  by  Dr.  E.  Schellwien,2  appeared  in  1901,  in 
which  a few  new  anatomical  points,  accompanied  by  illustra- 
tions, are  worked  out  for  two  previously  known  American  species. 
A number  of  additional  structural  characters  were  made  known 
in  1903  by  Dr.  George  F.  Eaton,  of  Yale  University,  in  the  case 

1Monogr.  U.  S.  Geol.  Surv.,  xiv.  Washington,  1888. 

2 Schellwien,  E.,  Ueber  Semionotus  Ag.  Schriften  der  Phys.-Oekonom.  Gesellsch. 
zu  Kinigsberg  i.  Pr.,  1901,  pp.  i-34.  pb  biii. 


No.  l8.]  TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT.  41 

of  four  or  five  American  species  of  Semionotus.1  The  diagnosis 
of  this  genus  was  further  emended  by  Professor  Gorjanovic- 
Kramberger,  still  more  recently,  in  the  course  of  his  description 
of  the  Upper  Triassic  fish  fauna  of  Hallein,  Salzburg.2  In  this 
memoir  the  author  set  forth  evidence  intending  to  show  that  the 
family  position  of  Heterolepidotus  is  with  the  Semionotidse 
rather  than  with  the  Eugnathidse,  and  that  Allolepidotus  of 
Deecke  is  identical  with  Semionotus  proper. 

During  the  same  year,  1905,  some  revised  descriptions  of  the 
Triassic  fishes  of  New  Jersey  were  published  by  the  present 
writer,  with  incidental  mention  of  Connecticut  Valley  forms.3 
Reference  was  made  in  this  paper  to  the  totally  different  char- 
acter of  the  Kanab  Valley  fish  fauna  (Triassic  portion  of  the 
Shinarump  group,  Powell)  as  compared  with  that  of  the  Atlantic 
border  region,  and  it  was  pointed  out  that  the  former  displayed 
a marked  Liassic  aspect.  That  the  beds  which  carry  this  fauna 
are  in  reality  anterior  to  the  Lias,  and  probably  belong  to  the 
late  Trias,  has  been  recently  argued  by  Dr.  Whitman  Cross  in 
the  Journal  of  Geology  for  1908.  The  few  contributions  that 
have  appeared  in  regard  to  the  Triassic  fishes  of  the  Cordilleran 
region  have  already  been  referred  to  in  the  preceding  section. 

In  regard  to  restorations  of  the  leading  genera  Semionotus 
and  Dictyopyge,  figures  of  these  were  published  as  early  as  1864 
by  J.  Struver,  which  are  fairly  accurate  in  respect  to  form  of 
body  and  fin-structures,  but  leave  much  to  be  desired  in  the 
representation  of  cranial  and  facial  bones.  These  figures  are 
reproduced  by  Freeh  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Mesozoic  (Part 
II.  of  the  “ Lethsea  Geognostica,”  Stuttgart,  1903),  and  two 
other  illustrations  of  American  Triassic  fishes  are  copied  in  the 
same  work  from  Newberry’s  Monograph  (Texttafel  vi,  vii). 
No  satisfactory  restoration  of  Catopterus  has  yet  appeared,  but 
some  figures  of  the  head  portion,  prepared  from  original  draw- 
ings by  the  late  Professor  Newberry,  are  now  published  for  the 
first  time  in  the  present  Report  in  the  section  devoted  to  that 
genus.  (Figs.  5,  6,  p.  54.) 

1 Eaton,  G.  F.,  Notes  on  the  Collection  of  Triassic  Fishes  at  Yale.  Amer.  Journ. 
Sci.,  1903,  ser.  4,  xv,  pp.  259-268,  pi.  v,  vi. 

2 Gorjanovic-Kramberger,  K.,  Die  obertriadische  Fischfauna  von  Hallein  in  Salz- 
burg. Beitr.  zur  Paldont.  und  Geol.,  1905,  xviii,  pp.  193-224,  pi.  xvii-xxi. 

3 Geol.  Surv.  N.  J.,  Ann.  Rept.  for  1904  (1905),  pp.  67-102. 


42 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 


V.  SYSTEMATIC  DESCRIPTIONS  OF  UPPER 
TRIASSIC  FISHES. 

“ Die  Natur  ist  das  einzige  Buch,  das  auf  alien  Blattern  gewissen 
Inhalt  bietet.” — Goethe. 

Order  CROSSOPTERYGII. 

Family  CCELACANTHID^E. 

“ Body  deeply  and  irregularly  fusiform,  with  cycloidal,  deeply 
overlapping  scales,  more  or  less  ornamented  with  ganoine. 
Branchiostegal  apparatus  consisting  of  an  operculum  on  each 
side  and  a single  pair  of  large  jugular  plates.  Paired  fins  ob- 
tusely lobate.  Two  dorsal  fins  and  a single  anal;  the  anterior 
dorsal  without  baseosts,  the  posterior  dorsal  and  the  anal  with  bas- 
eosts,  obtusely  lobate.  Axial  skeleton  extending  to  the  extremity 
of  the  caudal  fin,  usually  projecting  and  terminated  by  a small 
supplementary  caudal  fin.  Air-bladder  ossified.” 

As  remarked  by  Smith  Woodward,  from  whose  Catalogue  the 
foregoing  definition  has  been  taken,  the  members  of  this  family 
have  perhaps  the  most  remarkable  geological  range  of  all  known 
extinct  fishes,  persisting  as  they  do  practically  unchanged  from 
the  Upper  Devonian  to  the  Upper  Chalk.  “ The  group  is  special- 
ized,” says  this  author,  “ in  the  large  symmetrical  caudal  fin, 
which  exhibits  a series  of  supports  directly  apposed  to  the  neural 
and  haemal  arches,  equalling  in  number  both  these  and  the  over- 
lapping dermal  rays.  It  is  also  specialized  in  (i.)  the  fusion  of 
the  bones  of  the  pterygo-quadrate  arcade,  (ii.)  the  reduction  of 
the  infradentaries  to  one,  (iii. ) the  reduction  of  the  opercular 
apparatus  to  the  operculum  on  each  side  and  a pair  of  gular 
plates,  (iv.)  the  loss  of  the  baseosts  in  the  anterior  dorsal  fin, 
and  (v.)  the  ossification  of  the  air-bladder.” 

This  family,  first  proposed  by  Louis  Agassiz  in  the  second 
volume  of  his  “ Poissons  Fossiles  ” (1844,  p.  168),  and  after- 
wards greatly  restricted  by  Huxley  in  two  important  memoirs 
of  the  British  Geological  Survey  (Decades  X and  XII,  1861  and 
1866),  is  at  present  understood  as  comprising  not  more  than  six 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


43 


well  recognized  genera,  among  which  the  most  satisfactorily 
known  are  Coelacanthus  proper,  Macropoma  and  Undina.  The 
typical  genus  enjoys  the  truly  remarkable  range  from  the  Upper 
Devonian  to  the  close  of  the  Paleozoic,  and,  if  the  evidence  of 
one  or  two  doubtful  forms  be  accepted,  possibly  even  higher; 
the  remaining  genera  extend  throughout  the  Mesozoic,  and  ex- 
hibit such  constancy  of  structural  characters  that  the  family  has 
been  frequently  cited  as  one  of  the  most  distinct  and  well  defined 
in  the  animal  kingdom.  Huxley,  for  instance,  drew  attention  to 
its  singular  compactness  and  homogeneity  in  the  following  para- 
graph i1 

“ The  Coelacanthini,  as  thus  understood,  are  no  less  distinctly 
separated  from  other  fishes  than  they  are  closely  united  to  one 
another.  In  the  form  and  arrangement  of  their  fins ; the 
structure  of  the  tail  and  that  of  the  cranium ; the  form  and  num- 
ber of  the  jugular  plates;  the  dentition;  the  dorsal  interspinous 
bones ; the  pelvic  bones ; the  ossified  air-bladder ; the  Coelacan- 
thini differ  widely  from  either  the  Saurodipterini,  the  Glypto- 
dipterini,  or  the  Ctenodipterini ; but,  on  the  other  hand,  they 
agree  with  these  families  and  differ  from  almost  all  other  fishes, 
in  the  same  respects  as  those  in  which  the  several  families  just 
mentioned  have  been  shown  to  agree  with  one  another,  viz., 
the  number  of  the  dorsal  fins,  the  location  of  the  paired  fins,  the 
absence  of  branchiostegal  rays  and  their  replacement  by  jugular 
bones.” 

Finally,  concerning  the  extraordinary  conservatism  and  per- 
sistence manifested  by  the  group  of  Coelacanth  fishes  ever  since 
its  introduction,  the  illustrious  English  biologist  whom  we  have 
quoted  expresses  himself  as  follows:2 

“ Bearing  in  mind  the  range  of  the  Coelacanths  from  the  Car- 
boniferous [since  ascertained  to  extend  from  the  Devonian]  to 
the  Chalk  formation  inclusive,  the  uniformity  of  organization 
of  the  group  appears  to  be  something  wonderful.  I have  no 
evidence  as  to  the  structure  of  the  base  and  side  walls  of  the 
skull  in  Coelacanthus , but  the  data  collected  in  the  present  Decade 

1 Huxley,  T.  H.,  Preliminary  Essay  upon  the  Systematic  Arrangement  of  the 
Fishes  of  the  Devonian  Epoch,  prefixed  to  the  Tenth  Decade  of  the  Figures  and 
Descriptions  illustrating  British  Organic  Remains  (1861,  p.  20). 

2 Illustrations  of  the  Structure  of  the  Crossopterygian  Ganoids.  Memoirs  of  the 
Geological  Survey  of  the  United  Kingdom , Depade  xii,  1866.  Reprinted  in  the  supple- 
mentary volume  of  the  Scientific  Memoirs  of  Thomas  Henry  Huxley,  1903,  p.  65. 


44  CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 

shows  that,  in  every  other  particular  save  the  ornamentation  of 
the  fin-rays  and  scales,  the  organization  of  the  Coelacanths  has 
remained  stationary  from  their  first  recorded  appearance  to  their 
exit.  They  are  remarkable  examples  of  what  I have  elsewhere 
termed  “ persistent  types and,  like  the  Labyrinthodonts,  assist 
in  bridging  over  the  gap  between  the  Palaeozoic  and  the  Mesozoic 
faunae.” 

The  earliest  known  American  representative  of  this  family 
is  a typical  Coelacanth,  described  as  Ccelacanthus  welleri,1  from 
the  Lower  Kinderhook  (base  of  the  Mississippian  series)  of 
Iowa.  Three  other  species  are  known  from  the  Coal  Measures 
of  Ohio  and  Illinois,  but  none  from  later  horizons  until  we  meet 
with  the  very  remarkable  and  in  some  respects  degenerate  ( e . g., 
as  regards  loss  of  certain  of  its  head  bones  and  most  of  its  tail) 
Diplurus  in  the  “ Newark  ” rocks  of  the  Atlantic  border  region. 
So  far  as  known,  this  genus  comprises  but  a single  large  species, 
D.  longicaudatus,  which  is  common  to  both  the  Connecticut 
Valley  and  New  Jersey  areas.  A vicarious  form,  to  use  a Ger- 
man expression,  or  perhaps  what  President  Jordan  would  call 
a “ geminate  species  ” or  genus,2  is  represented  in  the  Perledo 
limestone  of  Lombardy  by  Heptanema  paradoxum  Bellotti. 

Genus  Diplurus  Newberry. 

Supplementary  caudal  fin  prominent,  with  much  elongated 
pedicle ; fin-rays  robust,  closely  articulated  in  the  distal  half ; pre- 
axial  rays  of  the  first  dorsal  and  caudal  fins  with  spinous  tubercles. 
Scales  and  head  bones  irregularly  striated,  and  some  of  the  latter 
finely  granulated. 

Diplurus  longicaudatus  Newberry. 

1878.  Diplurus  longicaudatus  J.  S.  Newberry,  Ann.  N.  Y. 

Acad.  Sci.,  i,  p.  127. 

1888.  Diplurus  longicaudatus  J.  S.  Newberry,  Monogr. 

U.  S.  Geol.  Surv.,  xiv,  p.  74,  pi.  20. 

1891.  Diplurus  longicaudatus  A.  S.  Woodward,  Cat.  Foss. 

Fishes  Brit.  Mus.,  pt.  2,  p.  409. 

1905.  Diplurus  longicaudatus  C.  R.  Eastman,  N.  J.  Geol. 

Surv.  Rept.  for  1904,  p.  101. 


xJourn.  Geol.,  1908,  xvi,  p.  357. 

2 Jordan,  D.  S.,  The  law  of  geminate  species.  Am.  Nat.,  1908,  xlii,  p.  73. 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


45 


The  type  and  only  known  species,  attaining  a total  length  of 
about  70  cm.  to  the  tip  of  the  supplementary  caudal  fin,  and 
maximum  depth  of  trunk  about  20  cm.  Anterior  dorsal  fin 
strong,  supported  by  a single  large  laminar  axonost;  the  lobate 
posterior  dorsal  nearly  opposite  the  anal,  and  corresponding  to 
it  in  form  and  size.  Caudal  fin  much  elongated,  and  separated 
from  the  supplementary  caudal  by  a distinct  interval.  Paired 
fins  obtusely  lobate.  Scales  large,  cycloidal,  and  deeply  over- 
lapping ; the  exposed  portion  marked  with  fine  longitudinal  rugae ; 
teeth  unknown. 

This  large  Crossopterygian  is  of  extremely  rare  occurrence, 
being  known  by  a scant  half-dozen  individuals,  of  which  two,  in- 
cluding the  type,  were  obtained  from  near  Boonton,  New  Jersey, 
and  the  others,  very  imperfect,  from  Durham,  Connecticut.  Most 
of  the  remains  are  now  preserved  in  the  American  Museum  of 
Natural  History  in  New  York,  but  there  is  one  distorted  ex- 
ample of  the  lower  jaw  in  the  Museum  of  Wesleyan  University 
at  Middletown  (Cat.  No.  846),  which  was  collected  by  Mr. 
S.  W.  Loper  from  the  anterior  shales.  Unfortunately  this  speci- 
men shows  no  satisfactory  indication  of  teeth,  but  appearances 
are  at  least  suggestive  that  these  were  slender  and  conical.  The 
external  surface  of  the  bone  is  finely  granulated. 

Order  ACTINOPTERYGII. 

Paired  fins  non-lobate,  having  an  extremely  abbreviated  en- 
doskeletal  portion,  and  the  dermal  rays  prominent.  Caudal  fin 
abbreviate-diphycercal,  heterocercal,  or  homocercal.  A single 
paired  series  of  transversely  elongated  rays,  with  or  without  an 
anterior  azygous  element,  developed  in  the  branchiostegal  mem- 
brane between  the  mandibular  rami. 

Suborder  CHONDROSTEI.  Sturgeons. 

In  these  fishes,  the  oldest  and  most  primitive  of  the  Actin- 
opterygii,  the  notochord  is  more  or  less  persistent,  the  supports 
of  the  dorsal  and  anal  fins  are  less  numerous  than  the  dermal 
rays  apposed  to  them,  the  paired  fins  more  abbreviate  than  in 
the  Crossopterygian  order,  and  the  tail  is  completely  heterocer- 
cal. Primitive  sturgeons  differ  also  from  the  fringe-finned 


46  CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 

ganoids  in  the  development  of  a paired  series  of  transversely 
elongated  branchiostegal  rays  to  replace  the  pair  of  jugular  plates 
between  the  mandibular  rami;  infraclavicular  plates,  however, 
are  retained  in  both  groups.  Nearly  all  the  older  forms  have  a well 
developed  rhombic  and  ganoid  squamation.  So  far  as  known, 
the  chondrocranium  is  but  little  ossified,  and  the  cranial  bones 
are  mainly  dermal. 

The  evolutionary  history  of  the  sturgeon  tribe  is  thus  sum- 
marized by  Professor  Bridge  in  the  Cambridge  Natural  History 
volume  on  Fishes  (1904,  p.  485)  : 

“ The  Chondrostei  are  first  represented  in  the  Lower  Devonian 
by  the  solitary  Palseoniscid  genus  Cheirolepis,  a contemporary  of 
the  earliest  Crossopterygii.  They  occur  throughout  the  Mesozoic 
period,  except  in  the  Cretaceous,  and  also  in  the  Eocene,  and, 
while  steadily  diminishing  in  number  and  variety,  they  gradually 
approximate  to  their  degenerate  and  in  some  respects  highly 
specialized  descendants,  the  sturgeons  and  paddlefishes  of  the 
existing  fish  fauna.  Of  the  seven  families  included  in  the  group, 
the  Palaeoniscidse  are  the  oldest  and  most  generalized.  The 
Platysomatidse  are  a specialized  offshoot  from  the  Palaeoniscidse, 
and,  if  they  are  rightly  to  be  considered  as  Chondrostei,  perhaps 
the  same  may  be  said  of  the  problematic  Belonorhynchidae.  On 
the  other  hand,  there  are  certain  features  which  indicate  an  ap- 
proach to  Fishes  of  an  altogether  more  modern  type.  Finally, 
the  Chondrostei  represent  a stage  in  a career  of  degeneration,  the 
climax  of  which  is  reached  by  the  modern  Polyodontidse  and 
Acipenseridae.” 

Family  CATOPTERIDzE. 

Trunk  elongate  or  elongate-fusiform;  tail  abbreviate-hetero- 
cercal.  Head  bones  well  developed,  ganoid;  no  median  series 
of  cranial  roof-bones ; teeth  slender,  conical ; eye  far  forward, 
and  snout  prominent;  mandibular  suspensorium  more  or  less 
obliquely  directed  backward  and  downward.  A series  of  branchi- 
ostegal rays  present.  Dorsal  fin  single  and  not  much  extended. 
Scales  rhombic,  ganoid. 

This  short-lived  family,  in  which  are  comprised  not  more 
than  three  closely  related  genera  ( Catopterus , Perleidus,  and 
Dictyopyge),  appears  in  the  early  Mesozoic  just  as  the  large  and 
successful  group  of  Palseoniscid  fishes  are  entering  upon  their 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


47 


decline.  Derived  in  all  probability  from  the  ancient  Palseoniscid 
stock,  and  still  retaining  certain  of  its  characteristics,  these 
genera  represent  an  advance  over  primitive  sturgeons  in  the  di- 
rection of  the  next  higher  suborder  (Protospondyli),  yet  without 
marking  a definite  transition  to  that  group.  The  upper  lobe  of 
the  tail  has  become  shortened,  although  still  heterocercal ; and  in 
Dictyopyge  at  least  the  supports  of  the  anal  fin  are  recorded  as 
fewer  in  number  than  the  apposed  dermal  rays.  The  family 
is  accompanied  in  the  Trias  by  other  Chondrosteans  which  be- 
came eel-shaped  (Belonorhynchidse)  and  died  out  during  that 
period.  Still  others,  which  gradually  lost  their  scaly  covering 
and  Jiead  bones  (Chondrosteus) , continued  to  survive,  and  are 
represented  by  the  sturgeons  of  the  present  day.  The  relations 
of  this  family  are,  therefore,  with  modem  sturgeons  rather  than 
with  the  two  surviving  genera  of  Protospondyli,  Amia  and 
Lepidosteus. 

Genus  Catopterus  Redfield. 

(Syn.  Reddeldius  Hay.) 

Trunk  elegantly  fusiform,  head  relatively  small,  tail  hemi- 
heterocercal.  External  bones  more  or  less  ornamented  with 
ridges  and  tubercles  of  ganoine;  no  median  series  of  cranial 
roof-bones.  Fins  of  moderate  size,  consisting  of  robust  rays, 
more  or  less  enameled,  and  distally  bifurcated;  fulcra  well  de- 
veloped, short  and  closely  set.  Dorsal  and  anal  fins  triangular, 
the  origin  of  the  former  behind  that  of  the  latter ; caudal  fin 
forked.'  Scales  large  or  of  moderate  size,  nearly  or  quite 
smooth,  and  serrated  along  their  postero-inferior  margin ; dorsal 
ridge-scales  not  much  enlarged.  Teeth  numerous,  small,  acutely 
conical. 

This  genus  appears  to  be  restricted  to  the  Atlantic  Border 
Trias  of  North  America,  although  a supposed  Catopterid  genus, 
named  Perleidus  by  De-Alessandri,  occurs  in  the  Ladinian  lime- 
stone of  Lombardy,  and  the  still  more  closely  related  genus 
Dictyopyge  is  of  world-wide  distribution. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  remains  of  Catopterus  are  on  the  whole 
less  abundant  than  those  of  the  accompanying  genus  Semionotus , 
both  in  the  Connecticut  Valley  area  and  in  New  Jersey,  and  as 
a rule  they  are  less  well  preserved.  Nevertheless,  the  characters 


48 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY. 


presented  by  the  former  genus  are  so  well  marked  and  distinctive 
that  there  is  seldom  any  difficulty  in  determining  even  the  most 
fragmentary  individuals.  The  most  obvious  peculiarity  of  the 
genus  consists,  as  the  name  implies,  in  the  remote  position  of 
the  dorsal  fin.  In  Semionotus  the  dorsal  is  always  anterior  to 
the  anal  fin,  in  Catopterus  it  is  either  opposite  or  posterior.  The 
margins  of  all  the  fins  are  closely  set  with  fine  fulcra,  in  such 
wise  that  they  present  a delicately  fringed  appearance,  and  the 
fin-rays  themselves  are  very  numerous,  finely  articulated,  and 
enameled.  Other  noticeable  differences  consist  in  the  orna- 
mented condition  of  the  cranial  bones,  and  serration  of  the  hinder 
margin  of  the  scales. 

Whereas  the  genus  Semionotus  is  represented  in  this  country 
by  half  a dozen  or  more  species,  its  associates  Catopterus  and 
Dictyopyge  comprise  a much  smaller  number,  in  fact  not  more 
than  one  or  two  each.  After  a critical  study  of  differential 
characters  we  are  forced  to  admit  that  only  two  species  of  Catop- 
terus are  capable  of  being  clearly  distinguished.  These  are 
C.  gracilis  Redfield  and  C.  redfieldi  Egerton,  both  founded  on 
large  and  nearly  complete  fishes  which  differ  from  one  another 
chiefly  as  regards  proportions  of  body  and  scale  characters.  The 
so-called  C.  parvulus  Redfield  is  probably  to  be  regarded  as  the 
young  of  C.  gracilis , and  the  species  named  by  Newberry  C.  minor 
and  C.  ornatus  are  supposed  to  stand  in  a similar  relation  to 
C.  redfieldi. 

Catopterus  gracilis  J.  H.  Redfield. 

(Plates  IX-XI.) 

1837.  Catopterus  gracilis  J.  H.  Redfield,  Ann.  Lyceum  Nat. 

Hist.  N.  Y.,  iv,  p.  37,  pi.  1. 

1841.  Catopterus  gracilis  W.  C.  Redfield,  Am.  Journ.  Sci., 

[1]  xli,  p.  27. 

1841.  Catopterus  gracilis  E.  Hitchcock,  Final  Rept.  Geol. 

Mass.,  ii,  pp.  440,  460. 

1888.  Catopterus  gracilis  J.  S.  Newberry,  Monogr.  U.  S. 

Geol.  Surv.,  xiv,  p.  55,  pi.  16,  figs.  1-3. 

1895.  Catopterus  gracilis  A.  S.  Woodward,  Cat.  Foss. 

Fishes  Brit.  Mus.,  iii,  p.  2. 

1905.  Catopterus  gracilis  C.  R.  Eastman,  Ann.  Rept.  N.  J. 

Geol.  Surv.  for  1904,  p.  96. 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


49 


The  type  species,  attaining  a total  length  of  about  25  cm. 
Length  of  head  with  opercular  apparatus  about  equal  to  maximum 
depth  of  trunk,  and  contained  five  times  in  the  total  length  of 
the  fish ; depth  of  caudal  pedicle  somewhat  less  than  one-half  that 
of  the  abdominal  region.  Cranial  bones  finely  granulated.  Pelvic 
fins  arising  about  midway  between  the  pectorals  and  anal ; dorsal 
and  anal  fins  subequal  in  size,  and  almost  completely  opposed. 
Scales  smooth,  none  deeper  than  broad,  those  of  the  flank  in 
the  abdominal  region  very  finely  serrated. 

The  fin-formula  given  for  this  species  in  the  original  descrip- 
tion by  J.  H.  Redfield  is  as  follows : 

D.  10-12;  C.  30-40;  A.  20-30;  V.  circa  8;  P.  10-12. 

In  the  additional  notes  on  this  form  drawn  up  by  the  elder 
Redfield,  it  is  stated  that  “ the  pectoral  fins  are  of  an  elongated 
form,  and  are  strengthened  on  the  anterior  margin  by  one  or  two 
large  and  partly  flattened  rays,  to  the  front  of  which  the  fringe 
of  fine  ray  lets  [fulcra]  is  attached.  Owing  to  this  peculiarity 
of  structure,  the  smallest  section  of  the  pectoral  fin  will  often 
serve  to  identify  this  species.” 

Although  the  form  of  body  in  this  species  is  usually  more 
slender  than  in  C.  redfieldi,  it  sometimes  happens  that  distorted 
specimens,  in  which  the  anterior  part  of  the  trunk  has  become 
“ shortened  up  ” by  mechanical  deformation,  simulate  the  deeper- 
bodied  species  in  outline  and  general  proportions.  Conversely, 
also,  the  greater  depth  of  body  in  C.  redfieldi  as  compared  with 
the  genotype  is  often  obscured  by  the  familiar  hazard  of  vertical 
compression,  a circumstance  which  has  frequently  led  to  a con- 
fusion of  the  two  species.  Indeed,  this  very  circumstance  happens 
to  be  illustrated  in  the  case  of  one  of  the  original  cotypes  upon 
which  the  species  was  established  by  the  younger  Redfield ; and 
so  impressed  was  Newberry  with  the  idea  that  the  depth  of 
body  had  become  reduced  by  fortuitous  agency  that  he  actually 
proposed  to  cancel  the  specific  name  bestowed  upon  it  by  the 
original  author,  because,  as  he  avers,  for  a fish  which  “ in  its 
normal  condition  has  nearly  the  outline  of  the  shad 
the  name  of  Catopterus  gracilis  is  inappropriate  and  conveys  a 
false  impression.” 


50 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY. 


Arbitrary  and  captious  as  Newberry’s  procedure  appears  to 
the  modern  systematist,  such  license  was  by  no  means  uncom- 
mon, and,  indeed,  seems  to  have  been  not  only  tolerated  but  ap- 
proved by  the  best  paleontological  authorities  of  his  day.  Nowa- 
days, when  nomenclatural  codes  are  much  more  rigidly  en- 
forced, it  would  be  contrary  to  all  rule  to  abandon  a valid  specific 
name  because  of  either  a real  or  imaginary  incongruity  of  mean- 
ing, and  in  cases  where  the  name  originally  bestowed  upon  a 
species  has  become  displaced  for  no  more  cogent  reason  than 
this,  the  tendency  is  to  reinstate  it.  In  the  present  instance 
it  cannot  be  said  that  Newberry’s  proposal  has  become  generally 
adopted,  nor  has  it  the  sanction  of  long  established  usage ; hence 
the  only  course  open  to  us  is  to  continue  to  recognize  the  original 
of  Redfield’s  figure  as  one  of  the  authentic  cotypes  of  this  species. 

We  are  indebted  to  the  generosity  of  Professor  Schuchert 
for  the  privilege  of  reproducing  a photograph  of  this  well  pre- 
served exemplar  (Plate  IX),  which  is  now  the  property  of  Yale 
University  Museum.  In  this  will  be  noted  inter  alia  the  Pal- 
aeoniscid-shaped  head,  forwardly  placed  orbit,  and  tolerably 
distinct  outlines  of  facial  and  cranial  plates.  The  mandible,  un- 
fortunately, is  missing,  the  striated  opercular  and  tuberculated 
cheek  plates  are  arranged  after  a different  pattern  from  the 
corresponding  parts  in  the  Semionotidae,  and  there  is  no  clear 
indication  of  either  a circumorbital  ring  or  of  branchiostegal 
rays. 

Another  nearly  complete  example  of  the  same  species  is  il- 
lustrated in  Plate  X.  Like  the  first,  it  was  obtained  from  near 
Durham,  Connecticut,  but  from  a somewhat  higher  level,  the 
horizon  being  that  known  as  the  posterior  shale.1  Mr.  S.  W. 
Loper,  who  collected  it,  remarks  that  this  is  the  only  good  speci- 
men ever  obtained  from  the  beds  in  question,  after  many  years  of 
fruitless  search.  The  specimen  is  remarkable  for  its  well  preserved 
squamation,  and  it  also  reveals  the  outline  of  the  head  much 
more  satisfactorily  than  the  Redfield  cotype.  The  mandible  is 

1 Most  of  the  fossil  fishes  in  the  Connecticut  valley  have  been  found  at  two  well- 
marked  horizons.  One  stratum  of  black  shale  lies  between  the  lower  (anterior,  Perci- 
val)  and  the  thick  middle  or  main  lava  sheet,  another  between  the  main  and  the 
upper  (posterior,  Percival)  lava  sheet.  These  two  fossiliferous  strata  have  been 
called  accordingly  the  anterior  and  the  posterior  black  shale.  Davis  and  Loper,  Two 
Belts  of  Fossiliferous  Black  Shale  in  the  Triassic  Formation  of  Connecticut.  Bull. 
Geol.  Soc.  Am.,  ii,  pp.  415-430. 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


51 


Palaeoniscid-like,  and  still  carries  a few  minute  teeth.  Remains 
of  the  same  species  are  common  to  both  the  New  England  and 
New  Jersey  areas. 

Catopterus  redfieldi  Egerton. 

(Figs,  s,  6.) 

Catopterus  redfieldi  Sir  P.  G.  Egerton,  Quart.  Journ. 
Geol.  Soc.,  iii,  p.  278. 

Catopterus  redfieldi  J.  S.  Newberry,  Monogr.  U.  S. 

Geol.  Surv.,  xiv,  p.  53,  pi.  15,  figs.  1-3. 

Catopterus  redfieldi  A.  S.  Woodward,  Cat.  Foss. 

Fishes  Brit.  Museum,  pt.  3,  p.  3. 

Catopterus  redfieldi,  F.  Freeh,  Lethaea  geognostica, 
Part  2,  Trias,  p.  12,  text-pl.  7,  fig.  2. 

Catopterus  redfieldi  C.  R.  Eastman,  Ann.  Rept.  Geol. 
Surv.  N.  J.  for  1904,  p.  98. 

This  species  is  described  by  its  founder  as  “ broader  than  the 
preceding  [C.  gracilis],  and  with  scales  not  so  long  in  proportion 
to  their  depth/’  The  original  definition  has  been  supplemented 
by  a number  of  differential  characters  observed  by  Newberry, 
and  the  extended  description  given  by  the  American  author  has 
been  condensed  by  Smith  Woodward  into  the  following  para- 
graph : 

“A  comparatively  robust  species  as  large  as  the  type.  Length 
of  head  with  opercular  apparatus  not  more  than  two-thirds  as 
great  as  the  maximum  depth  of  the  trunk,  and  contained  nearly 
six  times  in  the  total  length  of  the  fish ; depth  of  caudal  pedicle 
equaling  about  one-third  that  of  the  abdominal  region.  Cranial 
bones  finely  granulated.  Pelvic  fins  arising  midway  between  the 
pectorals  and  anal ; dorsal  and  anal  fins  nearly  equal  in 
size,  and  the  former  arising  opposite  to  the  middle  of  the  latter. 
Scales  mostly  smooth,  but  sometimes  in  part  longitudinally 
striated,  the  striae  terminating  in  the  coarse  serrations  of  the 
posterior  border  which  characterize  the  principal  flank-scales ; 
many  of  the  flank-scales  deeper  than  broad.” 

Neither  in  this  nor  in  any  other  species  of  Catopterus  has  the 
structure  of  the  head  and  shoulder-girdle  been  satisfactorily 
worked  out,  these  parts  being  as  a rule  too  imperfectly  preserved 


1847- 

1888. 

1895. 

1903. 

1905. 


52 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY. 


for  study.  Nevertheless,  an  attempt  was  made  in  this  direction 
by  J.  S.  Newberry,  and  it  is  perhaps  worthy  of  note  that  the 
material  upon  which  his  restorations  were  based,  together  with 
certain  unpublished  figures  and  manuscript  notes,  are  now  the 
property  of  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History.  For  the 
privilege  of  studying  both  the  original  material  and  the  records 
of  Newberry’s  interpretation  of  them,  the  writer  is  indebted  to 
the  courtesy  of  his  friend  Dr.  Bashford  Dean,  Curator  of  fossil 
fishes  in  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History  in  New  York. 
With  his  permission,  two  of  Newberry’s  original  drawings  are 
reproduced  for  the  first  time  in  Figs.  5 and  6,  one  rep- 
resenting the  head  portion  viewed  from  aboye  and  to  one  side, 
the  other  from  below. 

With  reference  to  the  specimens  serving  as  the  basis  of  New- 
berry’s restorations  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  larger  and  more 
perfect  (the  one  shown  in  Fig.  5,  Cat.  No.  2431)  has  the  head 
portion  preserved  in  the  form  of  an  impression,  wherein  certain 
sutural  indications  are  plainly  visible,  others  less  clearly  so. 
Three  drawings  of  this  specimen  occur  among  Newberry’s  reli- 
quiae, all  bearing  explanatory  legends  in  his  handwriting.  From 
a careful  collation  of  these  with  the  original  it  appears  that  our 
author  was  mistaken  in  his  reading  of  several  parts  of  the  cranial 
osteology,  more  particularly  as  regards  the  cheek  plates  and 
opercular  apparatus,  and  it  is  a question  whether  he  has  not 
sometimes  mistaken  grooves  of  the  sensory  canal  system  for 
suture  lines. 

But  at  the  same  time  it  must  be  admitted  that  precisely  in 
these  particulars,  owing  to  lack  of  definiteness  in  the  impression, 
there  is  room  for  considerable  latitude  of  interpretation,  and 
that  after  all  a final  judgment  cannot  be  based  upon  this  single 
specimen  standing  alone,  without  the  aid  of  well  authenticated 
points  of  control  derived  from  comparison  of  a large  quantity 
of  material.  No  single  specimen  has  yet  come  to  light  which 
reveals  the  lateral  aspect  of  the  head  in  thoroughly  satisfactory 
manner,  and  any  attempt  to  correct  or  improve  upon  Newberry’s 
restoration  must  proceed  from  a mosaic  built  up  of  overlapping 
sections.  Much  effort  has  been  expended  by  the  present  writer 
in  this  direction,  and  some  progress  has  been  made  towards 
elaborating  the  complete  cranial  structure.  Yet  the  work  is 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


53 


still  incomplete,  and,  owing  to  deficiency  of  reliable  material,, 
the  time  has  not  yet  come  when  a thoroughly  satisfactory  and 
authentic  restoration  can  be  given  of  the  head.  For  the  present, 
however,  we  may  content  ourselves  with  calling  attention  to  the 
general  Palseoniscid-like  arrangement  of  the  cranial  plates,  as 
far  as  the  details  have  been  worked  out;  and,  in  default  of  a 
tentative  figure  showing  these  parts,  we  may  refer  the  reader  to 
the  different  types  portrayed  in  Fig.  7 on  page  59,  with  special 
emphasis  upon  the  approach  made  by  Catopterus  to  the  early 
and  more  primitive  models. 

A few  words  may  be  said  in  regard  to  the  second  of  New- 
berry’s drawings,  which  has  this  in  common  with  the  first,  and 
indeed  with  all  pioneer  studies;  that,  however  we  may  judge 
of  its  accuracy,  it  is  at  least  an  interesting  historical  document, 
and  has  a certain  intrinsic  value  in  so  far  as  it  acquaints  us  with 
a graphic  presentation  of  the  author’s  views  at  the  stage  he  had 
then  attained  in  his  investigations.  In  Fig.  6 is  represented 
Professor  Newberry’s  idea  of  the  structure  of  the  under  side  of 
the  head.  A comparison  of  his  drawing  with  the  original  speci- 
men (Cat.  No.  635  G)  shows  that  the  head  is  much  distorted, 
the  clavicle  and  infraclavicle  being  displaced  far  forwards,  and 
thereby  producing  a very  deceptive  appearance.  It  may  be  stated 
positively  that  no  median  jugular  plate  is  present,  nor  is  any 
trace  to  be  seen  of  the  branchiostegal  apparatus.  The  space 
included  within  the  angle  formed  by  the  mandibular  rami  ap- 
pears to  have  been  covered  in  part  by  rhombic  ganoid  scales, 
in  part  by  indurated  skin  ornamented  with  papillae,  but  not  oc- 
cupied by  distinct  plates.  Both  of  Newberry’s  originals  were 
obtained  from  near  Durham,  Connecticut. 

By  way  of  summarizing  the  few  definitely  known  facts  that 
have  been  gleaned  from  a comparison  of  very  numerous  cranial 
fragments  belonging  to  this  species,  the  following  points  may 
be  noted : The  head  is  in  general  Palseoniscid-like.  There  is  a 
pair  of  small  parietals  behind,  in  front  of  which  are  placed  the 
narrow  and  elongate  frontals,  traversed  longitudinally  by  sensory 
canals;  and  these  are  succeeded  in  turn  by  a median  ethmoid  of 
the  form  shown  in  Newberry’s  drawing  (Fig.  5,  e).  This  median 
system  of  plates  is  bounded  on  either  side  by  three  pairs  of 
lateral  plates  which  may  be  designated  as  the  squamosal,  post- 
frontal, and  prefrontal.  There  is  no  circumorbital  ring,  and  the 


54 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY. 


suborbitals  are  apparently  few  in  number.  The  preoperculum 
is  inconspicuous,  and  the  posteriorly  enlarg-ed  maxillary  re- 
sembles or  at  least  suggests  in  form  that  of  Paleozoic  Chon- 


drostei.  It  is  beset  with  numerous  fine,  acutely  conical  teeth, 
and  there  is  also  a small  dentigerous  premaxilla  which  is  often 
preserved  in  the  dissociated  state. 


The  distribution  of  C.  redfieldi  is  identical  with  that  of  the 
type  species,  and,  like  the  latter,  it*is  more  abundant  at  Durham 
than  in  any  other  locality. 


No.  18.  ] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


55 


Besides  the  two  species  we  have  just  noticed,  names  have 
been  proposed  for  several  others  whose  status  is  very  uncertain. 
Some  are  doubtless  to  be  regarded  as  young  individuals  belong- 
ing to  one  or  the  other  of  the  above  characterized  forms,  and 
the  types  upon  which  others  are  founded  defy  adequate  descrip- 
tion. In  the  opinion  of  Smith  Woodward,  as  remarked  by  him 
in  Part  III  of  his  “ Catalogue  of  Fossil  Fishes,”  the  so-called 
Catopterus  minor  Newberry  is  probably  founded  on  immature 
and  variously  distorted  examples  of  C.  rediieldi.  Further,  the 
same  author  regards  it  as  uncertain  whether  the  type  of 
C.  ornatus  Newberry  should  be  associated  with  this  species  or 
some  other.  “ The  type,”  he  says,  “ is  a unique,  much  distorted, 
small  specimen  from  Durham,  which  seems  to  have  been  chemi- 
cally eroded  in  such  a way  as  to  display  the  concentric  lines 
of  growth  in  the  scales”  ( loc . cit.,  p.  3).  It  should  be  said 
with  reference  to  this  last  statement  that  the  concentric  markings 
of  the  scales,  which  seem  to  be  correlated  with  a subovate  form 
of  the  latter,  are  to  be  seen  only  along  a part  of  the  flank,  where 
the  body  has  been  much  twisted  upon  itself.  They  fail  to  show 
in  the  impression  which  is  visible  of  the  opposite  side  of  the 
body;  and  these  two  facts  taken  together  tend  to  strengthen  the 
belief  that  they  are  of  accidental  origin. 

Genus  Dictyopyge  Egerton. 

Distinguished  from  Catopterus  only  by  the  more  anterior 
position  of  the  dorsal  fin,  which  never  arises  behind  the  origin 
of  the  anal. 


Dictyopyge  macrura  W.  C.  Redfield. 

1841.  Catopterus  macrurus  W.  C.  Redfield,  Am.  Journ.  Sci., 
[1]  xli,  p.  27. 

1847.  Dictyopyge  macrura  Sir  P.  G.  Egerton,  Quart.  Journ. 

Geol.  Soc.,  iii,  p.  276,  pi.  8;  pi.  9,  fig.  1. 

1857.  Catopterus  macrurus  W.  C.  Redfield,  Proc.  Amer. 

Assoc.  Adv.  Sci.  1856,  pt.  2,  p.  186. 

1888.  Dictyopyge  macrura  J.  S.  Newberry,  Monogr.  U.  S. 

Geol..  Surv.,  xiv,  p.  64,  pi.  18,  figs.  1,  2. 

1895.  Dictyopyge  macrura  A.  S.  Woodward,  Cat.  Foss. 
Fishes  Brit.  Mus.,  pt.  3,  p.  4,  fig.  1. 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 


56 


1905.  Dictyopyge  macrura  C.  R.  Eastman,  Ann.  Rept. 

Geol.  Surv.  N.  J.  for  1904,  p.  99,  pi.  13.1 

A species  attaining  a total  length  of  about  15cm:  Length  of 
head  with  opercular  apparatus  somewhat  less  than  the  maximum 
depth  of  the  trunk,  and  contained  nearly  five  times  in  the  total 
length  of  the  fish ; depth  of  caudal  pedicle  less  than  one-half 
of  that  of  the  abdominal  region.  Cranial  bones  externally  orna- 
mented with  fine  granulations.  Pelvic  fins  arising  midway  be- 
tween the  pectorals  and  anal  fin ; dorsal  at  least  as  high  as  long, 
arising  slightly  in  advance  of  the  anal,  and  nearly  as  large  as  the 
latter ; anal  with  about  30  rays,  and  extending  almost  to  the  base 
of  the  caudal  fin.  Scales  smooth,  not  serrated. 

This,  the  type  species  of  the  genus,  was  originally  described 
under  the  name  of  Catopterus  macrttrus,  but  was  afterwards 
held  by  Sir  Philip  Grey  Egerton  to  be  excluded  from  association 
with  the  latter  genus  on  account  of  the  following  differential 
characters : ( 1 ) “ the  dorsal  fin  is  more  strictly  opposite  to  the 

anal  than  in  Catopterus  redfieldi;”  and  (2)  “ having  a homo- 
cercal  tail,  it  cannot  be  comprehended  in  it.”  It  was  pointed  out 
by  the  elder  Redfield,  however,  who  denied  that  Dictyopyge  was 
entitled  to  rank  as  an  independent  genus,  that  the  type  species 
was  in  reality  no  less  heterocercal  than  other  Catopteridae,  and 
“ with  the  other  common  characters  the  slight  difference  in  the 
position  of  the  fins  had  in  his  judgment  only  a specific  value.” 
The  close  resemblance  between  the  two  genera,  Catopterus  and 
Dictyopyge , was  also  remarked  by  Newberry,  who  observes: 
“ The  only  differences  which  I can  specify  between  our  com- 
monest species  of  Catopterus  and  Dictyopyge  are  the  broader 
operculum,  the  narrower  scales  of  the  belly,  and  the  less  deeply 
forked  tail  of  the  latter.” 

This  species  occurs  typically  in  the  Upper  Trias  of  the 
Virginia  Coal  field,  and  its  presence  has  not  previously  been 
reported  elsewhere.  There  is,  however,  in  the  collection  be- 
longing to  the  Museum  of  Comparative  Zoology  at  Cambridge 
a single  specimen  (Cat.  No.  2531),  labelled  as  having  been  de- 
rived “ probably  from  Middletown,  Connecticut,”  and  erroneously 
referred  in  the  above-cited  publication  to  the  type  species  of 
Catopterus.  Regarded  as  a young  individual  of  that  species,  it 
was  figured  under  that  name  by  the  present  writer  in  the  Report 


1 The  original  of  this  plate  is  here  incorrectly  assigned  to  Catopterus. 


No.  1 8.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


57 


of  the  State  Geologist  of  New  Jersey  for  1904.  A reconsidera- 
tion of  its  characters,  however,  especially  the  remote  position 
of  the  dorsal  fin,  and  the  appearance  of  the  squamation  and  oper- 
cular plates,  leaves  little  room  to  doubt  that  its  affinities  art 
with  Dictyopyge.  Nor  does  any  good  reason  appear  for  doubt- 
ing the  trustworthiness  of  the  record  of  the  locality  whence  the 
specimen  was  derived.  The  micaceous  grains  in  the  matrix  are 
a characteristic  feature  of  the  Connecticut  Valley  sandstone,  and 
the  general  appearance  of  the  rock  is  wholly  dissimilar  to  the 
prevailing  type  of  deposit  occurring  either  in  New  Jersey  or 
Virginia.  For  the  present,  therefore,  the  evidence  of  this  speci- 
men must  be  accepted  as  proving  the  presence  of  Dictyopyge  in 
the  Connecticut  Valley  area. 

Suborder  PROTOSPONDYLI. 

In  this  suborder,  as  distinguished  from  Paleozoic  and  early 
Mesozoic  Chondrosteans,  the  median  fins  become  absolutely  com- 
plete, in  that  each  separate  ray  has  its  own  individual  sup- 
port. At  the  same  time  the  upper  lobe  of  the  tail  is  considerably 
shortened,  so  that  the  caudal  fin  forms  a flexible  fan-shaped 
expansion  at  the  blunt  end  of  the  body.  The  members  of  this 
suborder  chiefly  characterize  the  Triassic  and  Jurassic  periods, 
and  exhibit  endless  variety;  but  their  sole  survivors  at  the 
present  day  are  the  long-bodied  garpike  ( Lepidosteus ) and  bow- 
fin  (Amia)  of  American  fresh  waters. 

Family  SEMIONOTIDyE. 

Trunk  more  or  less  deeply  fusiform,  rarely  cycloidal.  Cranial 
and  facial  bones  more  or  less  robust,  and  opercular  apparatus 
complete.  Gape  of  mouth  small,  teeth  styliform  or  modified  for 
crushing.  Notochord  persistent,  vertebrae  not  more  than  rings. 
Fin-rays  robust,  fulcra  large,  dorsal  fin  not  extending  more  than 
one-half  the  length  of  the  trunk.  Scales  rhombic,  except  oc- 
casionally in  the  caudal  region. 

Genus  Semionotus  Agassiz. 

(Syn.  Ischypterus  Egerton.) 

Trunk  fusiform.  Marginal  teeth  slender,  conical,  somewhat 
spaced,  inner  teeth  stouter;  opercular  apparatus  well  developed, 


) 


58  CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 

with  a narrow  arched  preoperculum.  Ribs  ossified.  Fulcra  un- 
usually large.  Paired  fins  small,  dorsal  fin  large,  arising  at  or 
behind  the  middle  of  the  back,  and  in  part  opposed  to  the  rela- 
tively small  anal;  caudal  fin  slightly  forked.  Scales  smooth 
or  feebly  ornamented,  and  the  narrow  overlapped  margin  pro- 
duced at  the  angles  and  at  the  superior  border.  Flank-scales 
not  more  than  twice  as  deep  as  broad,  the  dorsal  ridge-series 
of  acuminate  scales  forming  a prominent  crest.  (Woodward.) 

The  cranial  osteology  of  this  genus  is  much  more  satisfactorily 
known  than  that  of  Cato pt eras,  although  information  is  still 
lacking  rfc  some  particulars.  The  researches  of  Agassiz  ac- 
quainted us  in  a general  way  with  the  structure  of  the  head 
portion  in  5\  nilssoni,  from  the  Rhaetic  of  Sweden  (see  Plate 
VI),  and  in  recent  years  our  knowledge  has  been  increased  by 
the  studies  of  E.  Schellwien,  Stromer,  Tornquist,  and  other 
foreign  writers,  and  by  the  careful  work  of  Dr.  George  F.  Eaton 
of  Yale  in  this  country.  Principal  enlightenment  has  been  gained 
from  investigation  of  S',  nilssoni , bergeri,  capensis  and  agassmi. 
The  more  important  cranial  features  may  be  briefly  indicated  as 
follows : 

The  membrane  bones  of  the  cranial  roof  form  a continuous 
shield,  extending  from  the  snout  nearly  to  the  occipital  border. 
The  two  principal  pairs  of  bones  are  the  narrow  and  elongate 
frontals,  reaching  from  the  premaxillaries  to  behind  the  orbits, 
and  the  much  shorter  parietals  in  contact  with  them  posteriorly. 
As  a rule  these  pairs  are  not  quite  bilaterally  symmetrical,  but 
the  sutures  are  more  regular  than  in  some  other  members  of  the 
same  family.  Skirting  the  lateral  borders  of  the  frontals,  and 
extending  also  over  the  forward  part  of  the  parietals,  are  deep 
mucous  canals,  which  are  developed  on  the  cerebral  side  of  the 
bones,  and  hence  not  commonly  visible  in  the  outer  aspect.  Be- 
hind the  parietals  occur  a pair  of  wedge-shaped  plates  corres- 
ponding to  the  supratemporals  of  Palseoniscoids.  These  are 
followed  in  turn  by  the  squamose  posttemporals,  which  in  most 
species  resemble  the  like-named  parts  in  primitive  Chondrosteans. 

The  squamosal  is  a plate  of  variable  width  and  irregular  shape 
abutting  against  the  parietals  and  frontals.  It  is  terminated 
anteriorly  by  a ring  of  circumorbitals,  but  its  posterior  limits 
are  apparently  not  the  same  for  all  species.  The  circumorbitals, 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT.  59 


Fig.  7.  Comparative  Diagrams  showing  types  of  cranial  structure  pre  sented  by  various  Paleozoic  Chondrosteans  (A-D)  as 
contrasted  with  theTriassic  Semionotus  (E).  A,  Rhabdolepis,  Permian  (after  Traquair).  B,  Nematopty chius,  Lower  Carbon- 
iferous (after  Traquair).  C , Rhadinichthys,  Lower  Carboniferous  (after  Tornquist).  D , Palceoniscus,  Permian  (after  Tra- 
quair). E.  Semionotus,  Triassic  (after  Schellwien). 


6o 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY. 


[Bull. 


as  their  name  implies,  are  a series  of  small  plates  surrounding  the 
orbit.  They  are  of  polygonal  contour  (see  Fig.  7),  and  are 
arranged  in  much  the  same  fashion  as  in  Lepidotus,  those  along 
the  inferior  border  being  of  large  size  and  extending  some  dis- 
tance in  advance  of  the  upper  row.  Indications  of  a mucous 
canal  are  observable  over  part  of  the  circumorbital  ring  in  some 
species.  Immediately  below  these  plates  are  situated  the  sub- 
orbitals, which  are  fewer  and  much  larger  than  in  Lepidotus, 
Dapedius,  and  related  genera.  The  line  of  demarcation  between 
the  suborbitals  and  contiguous  plates  has  not  been  satisfactorily 
determined  in  any  species  thus  far  investigated.1  The  postorbital 
is  a large  thin  plate  situated  between  the  hindermost  circum- 
orbitals  and  the  operculum.  It  is  sometimes  in  contact  with  the 
last-named  plate  posteriorly,  as  in  vS\  bergeri  and  possibly  in 
S.  nilssoni,  but  may  be  entirely  separated  from  it  by  the  pre- 
operculum, as  in  capensis. 

The  opercular  apparatus  consists  of  (1)  a large  operculum, 
of  variable  shape,  but  generally  with  a narrower  upper  border; 
(2)  a narrow,  falciform  preoperculum,  with  the  mucous  canal 
interrupted  and  appearing  as  a series  of  perforations;  (3)  a 
suboperculum,  the  exposed  surface  of  which  generally  exhibits  a 
sublimate  outline ; and  (4)  a triangular  interoperculum.  The 
posterior  borders  of  the  operculum  and  interoperculum  are  em- 
braced by  a large  and  heavy  plate,  often  very  conspicuous,  the 
clavicle.  This  is  similar  to  the  preoperculum  in  form,  but  is 
much  more  solid,  and  its  terminal  angle  in  front  is  frequently 
thickened  or  otherwise  prominent.  It  is  succeeded  behind  by 
one  or  two  enlarged  postclavicular  scales.  There  is  a series 
of  branchiostegal  rays,  but  these,  like  the  coracoid,  are  seldom 

4 Nevertheless,  the  relations  of  these  plates  and  also  other  details  of  the  cranial 
osteology  are  shown  with  considerable  clearness,  amounting  almost  to  certainty  as 
regards  some  features,  in  a number  of  specimens  of  Semionotus  from  a locality  a 
few  miles  north  of  Guilford,  Connecticut.  The  material  referred  to  was  collected 
nearly  a score  of  years  ago  by  Mr.  Loper,  and  is  now  preserved  in  the  U.  S.  National 
Museum  at  Washington.  Peculiar  conditions  of  weathering,  and  perhaps  also 
the  admixture  of  much  argillaceous  matter  in  the  rock,  are  responsible  for  the  excellent 
portrayal  of  details.  These  specimens  suggest  an  image  of  what  the  facial  and 
cranial  elements  should  look  like,  but  the  image  is  blurred,  and  refuses  to  shape 
itself  in  hard  and  fast  lineaments  which  are  requisite  for  a dependable  restoration. 
It  seems  better  to  resist  the  temptation  to  reconstruct  the  arrangement  of  head 
parts  from  material  which  is  highly  suggestive  but  still  not  quite  decisive.  The  same 
applies  to  well  preserved  specimens  of  Catopterus  from  the  Connecticut  Valley  region, 
and  to  equally  perfect  examples  of  Perleidus  from  the  Alpine  province. 


No.  j8. j 


TUIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


61 


well  preserved,  and  hence  imperfectly  known.  The  nature  of 
the  dentition  has  been  sufficiently  indicated  in  the  foregoing- 
family  and  generic  diagnoses. 

Concerning  the  use  or  abandonment  of  Egerton’s  generic 
term  “Ischypterus”  we  shall  waste  no  time  in  killing  dead  lions. 
In  this,  as  in  previous  articles  on  American  Triassic  fishes,  the 
term  in  question  is  regarded  merely  as  a synonym  of  Agassiz’s 
earlier  defined  genus,  Semionotus.  We  pass  on  now  to  a con- 
sideration of  the  different  species  occurring  within  the  New 
England  area. 

Semionotus  agassizii  (W.  C.  Redfield). 

(Plates  I,  II;  Text-figure  8.) 

1841.  Palceoniscus  agassizii  W.  C.  Redfield,  Am.  Journ. 
Sci.,  [1]  xli,  p.  26. 

1850.  Ischypterus  agassizii  Sir  P.  G.  Egerton,  Quart.  Journ. 
Geol.  Soc.,  vi,  p.  10. 

1856.  Ischypterus  marshi  W.  C.  Redfield,  Proc.  Amer. 
Assoc.  Adv.  Sci.,  pt.  2,  p.  188  (name  only). 

1888.  Ischypterus  agassizii  J.  S.  Newberry,  Monogr.  U.  S. 
Geol.  Surv.,  xiv,  p.  30,  pi.  3,  fig.  1. 

1888.  Ischypterus  marshi  J.  S.  Newberry,  ibid.,  p.  28,  pi.  2, 

% 1. 

1903.  Semionotus  marshi  G.  F.  Eaton,  Am.  Journ.  Sci., 
[4]  XV,  p.  264,  pi.  s,  figs.  5,  9,  10,  12;  pi.  6, 
figs.  1,  2. 

1905.  Semionotus  agassizii  C.  R.  Eastman,  Ann.  Rept. 

N.  J.  Geol.  Surv.  for  1904,  p.  80,  pi.  1 ; pi.  2, 
figs,  s,  9,  10,  12;  pi.  3,  figs.  I,  2;  pi.  7,  8. 

A large  and  elegantly  fusiform  species,  attaining  a total  length 
to  the  base  of  the  caudal  fin  of  about  25  cm.,  in  which  the  length 
of  the  head  and  opercular  apparatus  is  contained  three  and  one- 
half  times.  The  maximum  depth  occurs  between  the  paired 
fins,  where  the  number  of  longitudinal  scale-rows  is  about  twenty. 
The  number  of  transverse  scale-rows,  counting  along  the  lateral 
line,  is  about  thirty-four.  Scales  everywhere  large  and  thick. 
The  boat-shaped  dorsal  ridge-scale  covering  the  base  of  the 
dorsal  fin  anteriorly  is  rather  small,  rounded  in  front  and  not 


62 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


63 


notched  behind,  the  posterior  extremity  prolonged  instead  into  a 
fine  point.  Fins  strong  but  relatively  short-based,  the  caudal 
rather  prominently  furcate  and  with  about  seventeen  rays.  Dor- 
sal, anal,  and  pectoral  fins  with  about  fourteen  fulcra  each,  the 
ventral  with  about  twelve.  Apparently  four  dorsal  fin-fulcra 
originate  on  the  dorsal  line  over  the  basal  supports,  the  fifth 
being  slightly  less  than  one-half  the  length  of  the  anterior  fin- 
margin.  The  fin-formula  is  stated  to  be  as  follows : 

D.  9-10;  C.  17;  A.  9;  P.  12. 

This  is  one  of  the  largest  and  most  striking  of  the  fossil  fishes 
occurring  within  the  Connecticut  Valley  region,  easily  recognized 
by  its  gracefully  proportioned  outline,  regular  and  heavy  squama- 
tion,  and  thickness  of  head  bones.  Less  abundant  than  either 
N.  tenuiceps  or  N.  fultus  which  accompany  it,  it  is  distinguished 
from  the  former  of  these  by  the  following  differential  characters, 
as  was  first  pointed  out  by  Newberry:  the  dorsal  ridge-scales, 

which  are  usually  depressed,  are  less  strongly  developed  than  in 
S.  tenuiceps,  and  “ the  arch  of  the  back  does  not  show  the 
hump  which  is  so  characteristic  of  that  species ; the  fins  are  very 
strong;  the  fulcra  of  the  dorsal  and  anal  fins  unusually  broad 
and  long,  forming  arches  nearly  half  an  inch  wide  at  the  base, 
curving  gracefully  backward  to  a point.” 

Remains  of  this  species  are  common  to  both  New  Jersey 
and  New  England,  the  locality  near  Sunderland,  Massachusetts, 
having  furnished  a number  of  excellently  preserved  specimens, 
including  the  type  of  the  so-called  Ischypterus  marshi.  A photo- 
graph of  this  particular  individual  is  reproduced  in  Plate  I of 
the  present  Report,  and  in  Plate  II  is  shown  the  head  portion  of 
the  instructive  example  which  served  as  the  basis  of  Dr.  Eaton’s 
restoration,  published  in  1905.  The  originals  of  both  plates  are 
preserved  in  the  Peabody  Museum  of  Yale  University,  and 
equally  perfect  and  important  material  is  to  be  found  in  the 
American  Museum  of  Natural  History  at  New  York.  Other 
interesting  specimens  are  the  property  of  Amherst  College  and 
Wesleyan  University,  respectively.  As  long  ago  as  1845,  the 
distribution  of  this  species  was  stated  by  J.  H.  Redfield  to  be  as 
follows:  “Occurs  at  Sunderland,  Mass.;  Westfield  and  Middle- 
field,  Conn.;  Pompton  and  Boonton,  N.  J.”1 


1 Quoted  by  Newberry  in  his  Monograph  on  Triassic  Fishes,  1888,  p.  30. 


64 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 

Semionotus  fultus  (Agassiz). 

(Plate  III.) 

i836.  Palceoniscus  fultus  L.  Agassiz,  Poiss.  Foss.,  ii,  pt.  i, 
PP-  4,  43,  pl-  8,  figs.  4,  5. 

1841.  Palceoniscus  fultus  W.  C.  Redfield,  Am,  Journ.  Sci., 
[ 1 ] xli,  p.  25. 

1841.  Palceoniscus  macro pterus  W.  C.  Redfield,  ibid.,  p.  25. 
1847.  Ischypterus  fultus  Sir  P.  G.  Egerton,  Quart.  Journ. 
Geol.  Soc.,  iii,  p.  277. 

1850.  Ischypterus  fultus  Sir  P.  G.  Egerton,  ibid.,  vi, 
pp.  8,  10. 

1877.  Ischypterus  fultus  R.  H.  Traquair,  ibid.,  xxxiii, 
P-  559- 

1888.  Ischypterus  fultus  J.  S.  Newberry,  Monogr.  U.  S. 

Geol.  Surv.,  xiv,  p.  34,  pl.  6,  fig.  2;  pl.  7,  fig.  1. 
1895.  Semionotus  fultus  A.  S.  Woodward,  Cat.  Foss.  Fishes 
Brit.  Mus.,  pt.  3,  p.  58. 

1901.  Semionotus  fultus  E.  Schellwien,  Phys.-okon.  Ge- 
sellsch.  Konigsberg,  p.  29,  pl.  3,  figs.  4 (?),  5. 
1903.  Semionotus  fultus  G.  F.  Eaton,  Am.  Journ.  Sci.,  [4] 
xv,  p.  261,  pl.  5,  figs.  1-4. 

1905.  Semionotus  fultus  C.  R.  Eastman,  Ann.  Rept.  N.  J. 

Geol.  Surv.  for  1904,  p.  83,  pl.  2,  figs.  1-4;  pl.  9. 

The  synonymy  given  above  is  that  adopted  by  most  recent 
writers.  The  two  species,  S',  fultus  and  S.  macropterus,  were 
first  united  by  J.  H.  Redfield  in  his  paper  presented  before  the 
American  Association  of  Geologists  and  Naturalists  in  1845,  but 
were  afterwards  held  by  Newberry  to  be  distinct  on  account  of 
slight,  and,  as  a matter  of  fact,  inconstant  differences  in  their  body 
proportions.  It  is  now  commonly  recognized  that  minor  dif- 
ferences of  this  nature  are  the  result  of  accidental  conditions  of 
preservation.  Following  are  the  chief  diagnostic  features  of  this 
species : 

D.  10;  C.  15;  A.  10;  P.  10. 

A gracefully  fusiform  species  attaining  a total  length  to  the 
base  of  the  caudal  fin  of  about  15  cm.,  in  which  the  length  of 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


65 


the  head  and  opercular  apparatus  is  contained  three  and  one- 
half  times.  The  maximum  depth  of  trunk,  which  is  equal  to 
about  one-fourth  of  the  total  length,  occurs  midway  between 
the  head  and  dorsal  fin,  where  there  are  about  twenty  longitudinal 
rows  of  scales.  Scales  of  lateral  line  about  thirty-three.  Dorsal 
fin  arising  at  mid-length,  pectorals  nearer  to  the  anal  than  to 
the  pelvic  fins,  arising  opposite  a point  directly  in  advance  of 
the  dorsal.  Caudal  not  much  forked.  Anal  with  ten  rays,  partly 
opposed  to  hinder  half  of  the  dorsal,  its  origin  being  on  the 
third  oblique  scale-row  in  advance  of  the  dorsal  fin.  Dorsal 
fin-fulcra  about  twelve ; anal  ten ; ventral  and  pectoral  ten  each. 
Apparently  four  dorsal  fin-fulcra  originate  on  the  dorsal  margin 
over  the  interneurals.  The  fifth  dorsal  fulcrum  has  its  origin 
adjacent  to  that  of  the  first  ray,  and  is  about  equal  in  length  to 
one-half  the  anterior  margin  of  the  fin.  Scales  smooth  and  not 
serrated  posteriorly,  the  deepest  ones  occurring  in  the  fourth 
row  behind  the  clavicular  arch ; these  are  about  twice  as  deep 
as  they  are  wide  in  their  exposed  portion.  Dorsal  ridge-scales 
acuminate. 

As  has  been  stated,  the  sole  criterion  relied  upon  by  Newberry 
for  maintaining  the  so-called  S.  macropterus  as  an  independent 
species  consisted  in  a supposed  relatively  greater  depth  of  body, 
— “ the  fusiform  and  slender  fish  standing  for  /.  fultus,  and  the 
broader  one  for  I.  macropterus !’  Curiously  enough,  it  has  been 
shown  by  Dr.  Eaton,  after  a study  of  Newberry’s  originals  in 
the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  that,  whereas  one  of 
the  specimens  of  S.  macropterus  in  its  compressed  and  flattened 
condition  is  deeper  than  a type  of  S.  fultus,  all  the  others  are 
proportionally  more  slender.1  J.  H.  Redfield,  after  advocating 
the  suppression  of  the  trivial  title  macropterus,  remarks  that 
S.  fultus  is  specially  characterized  by  the  length  of  the  dorsal 
and  anal  fins,  which  are  even  longer  than  in  S.  tenuiceps.2 

In  the  New  Jersey  area,  this  species  outnumbers  all  others 
in  abundance,  and  in  the  Connecticut  Valley  Trias  it  is  scarcely 
inferior  in  numerical  importance  to  the  ubiquitous  5.  tenuiceps. 
The  average  length  of  body  is  stated  by  Newberry  to  be  about  six 
inches,  the  maximum  rarely  exceeding  eight  inches,  including  the 

1 Loc.  cit.,  1903,  p.  262. 

2 Cited  by  Newberry,  1888,  p.  35. 

5 


66 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 

caudal  fin.  In  Plate  III  is  given  a photographic  reproduction  of 
one  of  the  original  specimens  serving  for  Newberry’s  description. 

Semionotus  tenuiceps  (Agassiz). 

1836.  Eurynotus  tenuiceps  L.  Agassiz,  Poiss.  Foss.,  ii,  pt.  1, 

pp.  159,  203,  pi.  14c,  figs.  3,  4,  5. 

1837-  Palceoniscus  latus  J.  H.  Redfield,  Ann.  Lyceum  Nat. 
Hist.  N.  Y.,  iv,  p.  38,  pi.  2. 

1837.  Eurynotus  tenuiceps  J.  H.  Redfield,  ibid.,  p.  39. 

1841.  Eurynotus  tenuiceps  E.  Hitchcock,  Geol.  Mass.,  ii, 

P-  459>  pl-  29,  figs.  1,  2. 

1841.  Palceoniscus  latus  W.  C.  Redfield,  Am.  Journ.  Sci., 
[1]  xli,  p.  25. 

1850.  Ischypterus  latus  Sir  P.  G.  Egerton,  Quart.  Journ. 
Geol.  Soc.,  vi,  p.  10. 

1857.  Eurinotus  ceratocephalus  E.  Emmons,  Am.  Geol., 
pt.  6,  p.  144,  pl.  9a. 

i860.  Eurinotus  ceratocephalus  E.  Emmons,  Manual  Geol., 
2d  ed.,  p.  188,  fig.  164. 

1877.  Ischypterus  latus  R.  H.  Traquair,  Quart.  Journ.  Geol. 
Soc.,  xxxiii,  p.  559. 

1888.  Ischypterus  tenuiceps  J.  S.  Newberry,  Monogr.  U.  S. 

Geol.  Surv.,  xiv,  p.  32,  pl.  5,  figs.  1-3,  pl.  7,  fig.  3. 

1889.  Allolepidotus  americanus  W.  Deecke,  Palaeontogr., 

xxxv,  pp.  103,  1 14. 

1895.  Semionotus  tenuiceps  A.  S.  Woodward,  Cat.  Foss. 

Fishes  Brit.  Mus.,  pt.  3,  p.  59. 

1903.  Semionotus  tenuiceps  G.  F.  Eaton,  Am.  Journ.  Sci., 
[4]  xv,  p.  295. 

1905.  Semionotus  tenuiceps  C.  R.  Eastman,  Ann.  Rept. 
N.  J.  Geol.  Surv.  for  1904,  p.  87. 

A species  attaining  a total  length  of  about  20  cm.,  and  readily 
distinguished  from  all  others  (except  in  young  stages)  by  the 
excessive  development  of  the  dorsal  ridge-scales;  these  are  very 
large  and  conspicuous,  and,  in  mature  individuals,  comparatively 
obtuse.  The  anterior  dorsal  outline  is  considerably  arched, 
usually  forming  a characteristic  “ hump  ” immediately  behind 
the  head.  Length  of  head  and  opercular  apparatus  less  than  the 


No.  l8.]  TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT.  6/ 

maximum  depth  of  the  trunk,  and  contained  four  times  in  the 
total  length  of  the  fish.  Fins  as  in  S.  fultus.  Scales  smooth 
and  serrated,  those  of  the  middle  of  the  flank  in  part  twice  as 
deep  as  broad.  The  dorsal  ridge-scale  immediately  in  advance 
of  the  dorsal  fin  has  its  posterior  border  obtuse,  and  not  pro- 
duced, and  the  corresponding  ridge-scale  in  front  of  the  anal 
fin  is  notched  behind.  Ribs  more  strongly  developed  than  in  any 
other  species  of  the  genus. 

This,  the  commonest  form  occurring  within  the  Connecticut 
Valley  area,  is  as  a rule  easily  determinable,  its  most  conspicuous 
features  being  the  abrupt  elevation  of  the  dorsal  outline  im- 
mediately behind  the  head,  and  the  spiny  appearance  of  the 
back  occasioned  by  its  being  set  along  the  middle  with  long, 
thickened,  and  distally  pointed  or  clavate  ridge-scales.  The 
ribs  also  are  more  strongly  developed  than  in  other  species,  their 
curved  outlines  being  sometimes  traceable  even  when  covered 
with  scales.  Owing  to  the  frequency  with  which  this  species 
has  been  illustrated,  and  the  impossibility  of  mistaking  it  among 
collections  of  Triassic  fishes,  it  has  not  been  deemed  essential  to 
include  a figure  of  it  in  the  present  Report. 

S.  tenuiceps  outnumbers  all  other  species  in  the  Connecticut 
Valley  Trias,  and  is  tolerably  abundant  also  in  New  Jersey.  At 
Turner’s  Falls  and  at  Sunderland,  Massachusetts,  it  is  especially 
common,  probably  more  than  half  of  the  individuals  derived  from 
the  latter  locality  pertaining  to  this  form. 

Semionotus  micropterus  (Newberry). 

(Plate  IV.) 

1888.  Ischypterus  micropterus  J.  S.  Newberry,  Trans. 
N.  Y.  Acad.  Sci.,  vi,  p.  127  (name  only). 

1888.  Ischypterus  micropterus  J.  S.  Newberry,  Monogr. 

U.  S.  Geol.  Surv.,  xiv,  p.  31,  pi.  4,  figs-  E 2! 
pi.  12,  fig.  2. 

1893.  Ischypterus  newberryi  S.  W.  Loper,  Pop.  Sci.  News, 
March  18,  and  Pop.  Science,  May,  1899,  p.  98. 

1903.  Semionotus  micropterus  G.  F.  Eaton,  Amer.  Journ. 
Sci.,  [4]  xv,  p.  263,  pi.  5,  figs.  6-8,  11,  13. 

1905.  Semionotus  micropterus  C.  R.  Eastman,  Ann.  Rept. 

N.  J.  Geol.  Surv.  for  1904,  p.  87,  pi.  2,  figs.  6-8. 


68 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY. 


D.  8;  C.  15;  AL  8. 

A regularly  fusiform  species  attaining  a total  length  to  the 
base  of  the  caudal  fin  of  about  20  cm.,  the  maximum  depth  oc- 
curring shortly  behind  the  pectoral  fins  and  amounting  sometimes 
to  nearly  one-half  the  total  length.  The  dorsal  and  ventral  con- 
tours are  more  strongly  arched  than  in  S'.  fultus,  but  the  relative 
position  and  size  of  the  fins  are  about  the  same  for  both  species. 
Dorsal,  anal,  and  pectoral  fin-fulcra  relatively  shorter  than  in 
S,  fultus.  Apparently  three  dorsal  fin-fulcra  originate  on  the 
dorsal  line  over  the  interneurals.  The  fifth  dorsal  fulcrum  has  its 
origin  on  the  anterior  margin  of  the  anterior  ray  at  a considerable 
distance  from  its  base,  and  is  about  one-third  as  long  as  the 
anterior  fin-margin.  Pectorals  with  upwards  of  twenty  fulcra. 
Ridge-scales  moderate,  spiniform,  the  one  immediately  in  advance 
of  the  dorsal  fin  slightly  produced  into  a point  behind.  Scales 
frequently  serrated,  those  below  the  lateral  line  on  the  flanks 
tending  to  become  bi-  or  tridentate  on  the  postero-inferior  angle. 

This  is  a deeper-bodied  species  than  any  thus  far  considered, 
its  rather  strongly  convex  outline  marking  a transition  between 
the  types  presented  by  S.  fultus,  for  instance,  and  5*.  ovatus. 
Indeed,  the  approach  to  the  last-named  species  in  this  respect  is 
sometimes  so  close  as  to  make  a rigid  distinction  difficult  without 
the  aid  of  other  characters.  In  the  case  of  the  specimen  selected 
for  illustration  in  Plate  IV,  Newberry  himself  appears  to  have 
been  in  doubt  whether  to  refer  it  to  S.  micro  p ter  us  or  S.  ovatus, 
but  finally  decided  in  favor  of  the  former,  as  shown  by  MS. 
records  accompanying  the  original.  The  most  reliable  means 
for  identifying  the  present  species  is  furnished  by  fin  characters, 
the  details  of  which  have  been  carefully  worked  out  by  Dr.  Eaton 
in  his  paper  of  1903,  and  are  incorporated  in  the  above  definition. 

Remains  of  this  species  are  fairly  abundant  in  the  Connecticut 
Valley  Trias,  and  show  considerable  variation  of  size;  that  is 
to  say,  young  individuals  occur  somewhat  numerously,  so  that 
gradations  may  be  traced  up  to  the  maximum  recorded  by  New- 
berry. He  states  that  the  largest  individuals  known  to  him  attain 
a length  of  ten  and  one-half  inches,  and  the  smallest  are  “ only 
about  three  and  one-half  inches  long.”  Corresponding  with 
the  last  given  dimension,  and  otherwise  agreeing  with  the  char- 
acters of  this  species,  is  the  holotype  of  the  late  Mr.  S.  Ward 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


69 


Loper’s  Ischypterus  newberryi.  The  peculiarity  to  which  Mr. 
Loper  has  called  attention,  namely,  fine  concentric  scale-mark- 
ings, seems  to  have  been  occasioned  by  some  form  of  chemical 
corrosion  which  has  exposed  the  growth  lines.  A parallel  in- 
stance has  already  been  noticed  in  the  case  of  Catopterus  ornatus 
{supra,  p.  55),  and  similar  conditions  are  prevalent  among  fishes 
of  the  English  Chalk.  The  original  of  Mr.  Loper’s  description 
is  of  interest  for  showing  a well  preserved  mandible  beset  with 
numerous  slender  teeth,  and  a very  strongly  developed  support 
for  the  dorsal  and  anal  fins.  It  is  preserved  in  the  Museum  of 
Wesleyan  University,  and  was  obtained  by  Mr.  Loper  from  the 
anterior  shale  near  North  Guilford,  Connecticut. 

This  species  is  not  known  to  occur  elsewhere  than  within 
the  state  of  Connecticut,  and  is  especially  abundant  in  the 
vicinity  of  Durham.  It  is  possible  that  the  detached  head  figured 
by  Dr.  E.  Schellwien  in  Plate  3,  Fig.  4 of  his  memoir  above 
cited  belongs  to  S.  micropterus , since  this  is  one  of  the  few 
species  in  which  the  cheek  plates  are  granulated. 

Semionotus  ovatus  (W.  C.  Redfield). 

1842.  Palceoniscus  ovatus  W.  C.  Redfield,  Am.  Journ.  Sci., 
[1]  xli,  p.  26. 

1847.  (?)  Tetragonolepis  Sir  P.  G.  Egerton,  Quart,  Journ. 

Geol.  Soc.,  iii,  p.  277. 

1850.  Ischypterus  ovatus  Sir  P.  G.  Egerton,  op.  cit.  vi, 
p.  10. 

1888.  Palceoniscus  ovatus  J.  H.  Redfield  (quoted  by  New- 
berry), Monogr.  U.  S.  Geol.  Surv.,  xiv,  p.  27. 

1888.  Ischypterus  ovatus  J.  S.  Newberry,  loc.  cit.,  p.  27, 
pi.  i,  fig.  1. 

1903.  Semionotus  ovatus  G.  F.  Eaton,  Am.  Journ.  Sci.,  [4] 
xv,  p.  266. 

1905.  Semionotus  ovatus  C.  R.  Eastman,  Ann.  Rept.  N.  J. 
Geol.  Surv.  for  1904,  p.  78,  pi.  4-6. 

A large  species  attaining  a total  length  of  about  20  cm.,  with 
trunk  very  much  deepened  midway  between  the  head  and  dorsal 
fin.  Scales  large  and  thick,  becoming  gradually  deepened  toward 
the  middle  of  the  flanks ; tail  strong  and  considerably  expanded. 
Number  of  dorsal  and  anal  fin-fulcra  greater  than  in  any  other 


7o 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY. 


species,  each  fin  having  sometimes  twenty  or  more.  Length  of 
the  longest  fulcrum  of  the  dorsal  fin  nearly  equalling  one-half 
that  of  the  anterior  margin  of  the  fin. 

In  the  original  description  of  5.  ovatus  by  William  C.  Red- 
field,  it  is  stated  that  “ it  exceeds  all  the  known  American  species 
in  the  comparative  width  or  roundness  of  its  form,  and  is  also 
remarkable  for  the  large  size  of  its  scales.  It  is  of  rare  occur- 
rence, and,  owing  probably  to  its  great  thickness,  is  seldom  ob- 
tained in  a perfect  form.”  The  younger  Redfield,  commenting* 
on  the  same  species  in  1854,  pronounced  it  “ the  broadest  and 
most  ovate  species  of  Palcconiscus  that  is  known,”  and  added 
further,  that  “ in  size  of  the  scales  it  resembles  P.  Agassizii , but 
its  form  will  readily  distinguish  it.”  That  is  to  say,  the  squama- 
tion  is  heavy,  but  the  flank-scales  are  relatively  deeper  than  in 
S.  agassizii,  and  the  form  is  also  deeper-bodied,  or  more  ovate. 

The  Redfields,  father  and  son,  and  also  Newberry,  agree  in 
claiming  for  this  species  a distribution  in  both  the  Connecticut 
Valley  and  New  Jersey  Triassic  basins.  With  this  species  New- 
berry also  identifies  a fragmentary  individual  from  the  Triassic 
Coal-field  of  Virginia,  originally  referred  to  Tetragonolepis  by 
Sir  Philip  Grey  Egerton.  Noteworthy  is  the  fact  that  all  the 
more  perfect  examples  have  been  obtained  from  a single  locality 
near  Boonton,  New  Jersey,  and  the  recognition  of  this  species 
in  outlying  areas  depends  upon  the  evidence  of  unsatisfactory 
material.  The  present  writer  has  thus  far  failed  to  discover  a 
single  undoubted  .example  of  the  species  in  question  from  the 
Connecticut  Valley  Trias,  yet  this  is  by  no  means  equivalent  to 
saying  that  its  remains  do  not  occur  in  this  region.  It  may  per- 
haps be  worth  mentioning  that  in  the  Museum  of  Wesleyan 
University  is  preserved  the  anterior  half  of  a deep-bodied  fish 
(Cat.  No.  869)  whose  specific  relations  cannot  be  accurately 
determined.  It  is  labeled  as  belonging  to  N.  gigcos,  a “ species  ” 
which  can  be  maintained  only  in  a provisional  sense.  The  so- 
called  Semionotus  robustus  of  Newberry  is  but  little  better 
known,  and  is  doubtfully  distinct  from  N.  ovatus,  which  it  ap- 
proximates in  size.  A certain  resemblance  between  the  published 
figure  of  S.  robustus  and  the  imperfect  deep-bodied  specimen  at 
Wesleyan  University  just  referred  to  cannot  be  denied.  Further 
evidence,  however,  is  necessary  before  we  can  positively  affirm 
the  presence  of  S.  ovatus  in  the  New  England  area. 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


7 1 


Extra-limital  Species  of  Semionotus. 

At  least  three  other  valid  species  of  Semionotus , besides  those 
already  enumerated,  have  been  described  from  the  Trias  of 
Eastern  North  America.  These  are,  5.  lineatus,  elegans,  and 
brauni  of  Newberry.  They  are  all  confined  to  the  New  Jersey 
area,  so  far  as  known,  and  the  last-named  is  from  the  very  base 
of  the  Trias  in  that  state,  being  separated  from  the  Boonton 
horizon  by  an  interval  of  several  thousand  feet.  The  limits  set 
to  the  present  Report  do'  not  admit  of  elucidating  the  characters 
of  these  species,  which  can  by  no  possibility  be  confused  with 
the  members  of  our  local  fauna.  Nevertheless,  it  has  been 
thought  desirable  to  offer  an  illustration  of  the  form  which 
has  been  appropriately  named  S.  elegans  by  Newberry  (Plate 
V),  and  also  to  show  the  head-portion  of  the  type  specimen  of 

nilssoni  (Plate  VI),  which  enabled  Agassiz  to  decipher  the 
main  elements  of  the  cranial  structure  of  this  genus. 

To  the  list  of  imperfectly  defined  or  doubtful  species,  the 
status  of  which  is  merely  provisional,  must  be  added  the  names 
of  the  so-called  Ischypterus  parvus , founded  upon  a figure  pub- 
lished in  Hitchcock’s  Geology  of  Massachusetts,  in  1835 ; 
Ischypterus  minutus  Newberry,  from  Durham,  Connecticut;  and 
Ischypterus  beardmorei  Smith,  from  Boonton,  New  Jersey.  Of 
uncertain  position  also  are  the  obscure  remains  of  a Semionotus- 
like  form  described  by  Newberry  under  the  name  of  A centro- 
phorus  chicopensis,  the  few  known  examples  of  which  have  been 
obtained  from  metamorphosed  sandy  shales  near  Chicopee  Falls, 
Massachusetts. 

It  will  be  convenient  to  notice  at  this  point  the  status 
of  an  imperfectly  known  European  form,  described  in  the  first 
instance  by  Deecke  as  a species  of  Semionotus , and  recently  made 
the  type  of  a distinct  genus  ( Perleidus ) by  De-Alessandri,  who 
places  it  in  association  with  the  Catopteridse.  The  type  species, 
P.  alt  ole  pis  (Deecke),  occurs  in  the  Ladinian  beds  of  Perledo, 
Lombardy,  and  the  original  specimen  upon  which  it  is  founded 
is  preserved  in  the  Senckenbergian  Museum  at  Frankfurt. 
Deecke,  in  describing  the  species,  remarked  that  it  appeared  to 
him  to  denote  a transitional  stage  between  the  genera  Semionotus 
and  Pholidophorus.  Schellwien,  who  later  examined  the  speci- 
men. doubted  whether  it  could  properly  be  included  in  the  genus 


72 


CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY. 


Semionotus,  but  did  not  attempt  to  fix  its  systematic  position  more 
precisely. 

The  reasons  which  in  Professor  De-Alessandri’s  opinion 
justify  a removal  of  this  species,  and  with  it  the  new  genus 
Perleidus,  to  the  group  of  Catopterids,  are  enumerated  by  this 
author  as  follows : “ The  arrangement  of  the  cranial  elements, 

the  form  of  the  maxilla,  especially  its  expanded  posterior  portion, 
the  absence  of  suborbital  plates,  and  the  presence  of  a large-sized 
postorbital,  compel  an  assignment  of  this  form  to  the  family  of 
Catopteridae,  and  make  it  necessary  for  us  to  regard  it  as  the  type 
of  a new  genus.  Moreover,  the  position  and  form  of  the  fins, 
the  rather  feeble  fulcra,  the  configuration  of  the  scales  with  their 
strongly  denticulated  posterior  border,  and  the  absence  of  a 
series  of  acuminate  dorsal  ridge-scales,  are  characters  which 
warrant  a separation  from  the  genus  Semionotus 1 

The  new  genus  Perleidus  is  thus  diagnosed  by  its  founder: 
“ Trunk  elongate-fusiform,  and  head  relatively  small.  Super- 
ficial ornament  of  the  cranial  plates  consisting  of  rather  fine 
tuberculations  and  rugae.  Maxilla  extended,  and  posteriorly  en- 
larged. A series  of  circumorbitals  present,  but  no  suborbitals; 
one  large  postorbital  plate  present.  Fins  moderately  developed, 
comprising  robust  articulated  rays;  fulcra  small.  Dorsal  fin 
situated  opposite  the  pelvic  pair;  caudal  slightly  forked.  Scales 
rhomboidal,  deeper  than  long,  smooth  on  their  exposed  portion, 
their  posterior  border  denticulated/’2 

That  the  above-mentioned  genus  is  well  characterized  there 
can  be  no  doubt,  and  the  reasons  for  excluding  it  from  association 
with  Semionotus  are  sufficiently  valid.  It  must  be  admitted, 
however,  that  the  form  in  question  presents  considerable  resem- 
blance to  Pholidophorus,  and  the  position  of  the  dorsal  fin,  which 
arises  in  advance  of  the  anal,  offers  a marked  contrast  to  the 
condition  observed  in  the  family  Catopterids,  from  which  con- 
dition indeed  is  derived  the  name  of  the  typical  genus.  We 
prefer  to  accept  the  Milanese  author’s  determination  of  the 
family  position  of  this  genus  in  a provisional  sense,  rather  than 
to  assign  it  elsewhere  without  having  had  opportunity  to  study 
the  actual  specimens. 

1 Studii  sui  Pesci  Triasici  della  Lombardia.  Mem.  Soc.  Ital.  Sci.  Nat.,  1910,  vii, 
P-  Si- 

* Loc.  tit.,  p.  49. 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


73 


Family  EUGNATHID^E. 

Trunk  fusiform  or  elongate,  not  much  laterally  compressed. 
Cranial  and  facial  bones  moderately  robust,  externally  enameled, 
and  opercular  apparatus  complete ; gape  of  mouth  wide,  snout 
produced,  marginal  teeth  conical  and  larger  than  the  inner  teeth. 
Fin-rays  robust,  articulated,  and  distally  divided;  fulcra  con- 
spicuous. Dorsal  fin  short  and  acuminate.  Scales  rhombic, 
sometimes  with  rounded  posterior  angles. 

Genus  Ptycholepis  Agassiz. 

Trunk  elegantly  fusiform;  snout  acutely  pointed  and  promi- 
nent; external  bones  highly  ornamented  with  prominent  waved 
ridges;  marginal  teeth  very  small  and  regular;  dorsal  fin  in 
advance  of  anal,  caudal  fin  forked ; scales  all  narrow  and  elongate, 
marked  with  deep  longitudinal  grooves.  Fulcra  biserial,  con- 
spicuous on  all  the  fins  excepting  the  dorsal. 

Ptycholepis  marshi  Newberry. 

(Plates  VII,  VIII.) 

1878.  Ptycholepis  marshi  J.  S.  Newberry,  Ann.  N.  Y.  Acad. 

Sci.,  i,  p.  127. 

1888.  Ptycholepis  marshi  J.  S.  Newberry,  Monogr.  U.  S. 

Geol.  Surv.,  xiv,  p.  66,  pi.  19,  figs.  1,  2. 

1895.  Ptycholepis  marshi  A.  S.  Woodward,  Cat.  Foss. 

Fishes  Brit.  Mus.,  pt.  3,  p.  324. 

1905.  Ptycholepis  marshi  C.  R.  Eastman,  Ann.  Rept.  N.  J. 

Geol.  Surv.  for  1904,  p.  100. 

1908.  Ptycholepis  marshi  L.  Hussakof,  Bull.  Am.  Mus.  Nat. 

Hist.,  xxv,  p.  95. 

A species  of  slender  proportions,  attaining  a length  of  about 
20  cm.  Head  with  opercular  apparatus  occupying  somewhat 
more  than  one-fourth  the  total  length  of  the  fish.  Ornamental 
rugae  of  cranial  roof  slightly  radiating;  those  of  the  facial  and 
opercular  plates  more  or  less  parallel  and  forked.  Dorsal  fin 
far  forwards,  and  pelvic  fins  arising  opposite  its  hinder  extremity. 
Scales  exhibiting  only  longitudinal  ridges  and  furrows,  and  the 
hinder  border  often  deeply  serrated.  (Woodward.) 


74  CONNECTICUT  GEOL.  AND  NAT.  HIST.  SURVEY.  [Bull. 

This  gracefully  formed  and  elaborately  ornamented  species  is 
known  by  a dozen  or  more  examples,  all  derived  from  a single 
locality  near  Durham,  Connecticut.  Among  these  are  several 
excellently  preserved  individuals,  including  the  type  shown  in 
Plate  VII,  material  which  might  be  expected  under  ordinary  cir- 
cumstances to  yield  valuable  enlightenment  concerning  cranial 
structure.  Progress  in  this  direction,  however,  is  subject  to  the 
limitations  imposed  by  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  head  bones 
themselves : that  is  to  say,  by  the  highly  sculptured  and  heavily 
enameled  outer  surface  which  completely  conceals  suture  lines. 
It  is  nevertheless  permissible  to  draw  certain  inferences  con- 
cerning the  extent  and  arrangement  of  plates  forming  the  cranial 
roof  by  noting  the  centers  of  radiation  and  territory  traversed 
by  the  superficial  radiating  rugae;  and  the  general  pattern  thus 
revealed  has  been  found  to  agree  with  typical  Eugnathidse.  The 
dorsal  aspect  of  the  cranial  roof,  together  with  some  of  the 
facial  bones  and  opercula,  is  favorably  exposed  for  study  in  the 
specimen  represented  in  Plate  VIII,  the  original  being  preserved 
in  the  Yale  Museum  (Cat.  No.  2608).  The  lateral  aspect  is  even 
more  favorably  shown  in  the  original  of  Plate  VII,  which  is  the 
property  of  Wesleyan  University  Museum  (Cat.  No.  907). 
This  example,  though  of  a young  individual,  is  admirable  for  its 
presentation  of  fin  and  scale  structure,  and  for  showing  the 
normal  body  contour. 

In  connection  with  the  distribution  of  this  form,  it  should  be 
recalled  that  its  accompaniment  by  Semionotus,  Catopterus  and 
a Crossopterygian  genus  ( Diplurus ) is  a fact  of  capital  im- 
portance in  assigning  the  fauna  in  question  to  a horizon  equivalent 
to  the  Upper  Muschelkalk  and  Lower  Keuper  of  the  European 
marine  Trias.  All  the  evidence  derived  from  a study  of  the 
fossil  fishes  is  in  favor  of  establishing  a correlation  at  a level 
embracing  these  two  horizons,  but  probably  not  extending  higher 
than  the  basal  division  of  the  Keuper  in  the  Mediterranean 
region.1  For  a recent  review  of  the  evidence  for  establishing  an 


1 That  is,  the  Newark  fauna  cannot  be  regarded  as  younger  than  the  faunas  of 
Besano,  Lombardy,  and  of  Raibl,  Carinthia  (Lower  Alpine  Keuper),  which  mark  the 
uppermost  range  of  one  of  the  intercommunal  genera  Ptycholepis.  The  Upper  Muschel- 
kalk (Ladinian)  terms  of  comparison  are  furnished  by  two  Semionotid  genera,  one 
Captopterid,  and  one  Crossopterygian,  according  to  the  revised  determinations  of 
Professor  G.  De-Alessandri  (1910). 


No.  18.] 


TRIASSIC  FISHES  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


75 


inter-regional  correlation  of  the  Trias,  based  upon  another  class 
of  remains  than  fossil  fishes,  we  may  be  permitted  to  refer  at 
this  point  to  Dr.  J.  C.  Merriam’s  elaborate  memoir  on  “Triassic 
Ichthyosauria,  with  special  reference  to  American  forms  ” (es- 
pecially the  chapter  on  Geologic  and  Geographic  occurrence, 
pp.  12-20). 2 The  evidence  as  to  the  age  of  the  Triassic  forma- 
tion of  eastern  North  America  which  is  furnished  by  reptilian 
remains  (i.  e.,  numerous  footprints  and  a few  skeletons  of  Dino- 
saurs) will  be  discussed  in  a forthcoming  Bulletin  of  the  Con- 
necticut State  Survey  by  Professor  R.  S.  Lull  of  Yale  University. 

In  conclusion,  the  writer  of  the  present  article  desires  to 
acknowledge  his  indebtedness  and  at  the  same  time  return  hearty 
thanks  to  the  following  named  friends  and  colleagues  who  have 
shown  him  many  courtesies  and  placed  numerous  facilities  at  his 
disposal,  thereby  greatly  aiding  the  preparation  of  this  Report: 
Professor  William  North  Rice  and  the  late  Mr.  S.  W.  Loper  of 
Wesleyan  University;  Professor  Charles  Schuchert  and  Dr. 
George  F.  Eaton  of  Yale;  Professor  B.  K.  Emerson  and  F.  B. 
Loomis  of  Amherst;  Professor  Bashford  Dean  and  Dr.  E.  O. 
Hovey  of  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York; 
and  the  authorities  of  the  U.  S.  National  Museum  at  Washington. 


2 Memoirs  of  the  Univ.  of  California , 1908,  i,  no.  i,  pp.  1-196,  pi.  1-18. 


Index  of  Genera  and  Species 


Acanthodes  sulcatus,  15. 
gracilis,  15. 

Acentrophorus  chicopensis,  71. 

Acrodus,  34. 

Allolepidotus  americanus,  27,  66. 

Amia,  18,  47,  57. 

Asteracanthus,  34. 

Calamoichthys,  16. 

Catopterus,  32,  47,  74. 
gracilis,  48. 
macrurus,  55. 
minor,  48,  55. 
omatus,  48,  55. 
parvulus,  48. 
redfieldi,  48,  51,  54. 

Cephalaspis  murchisoni,  14. 

Ceratites  trinodosus,  24. 

Cheirolepis,  46. 

Chondrosteus,  47. 

Cladoselache  fyleri,  16. 

Climatius  scutiger,  15. 

Coelacanthus,  43. 
welleri,  44. 

Cosmacanthus,  34. 

Dapedius,  60. 

Dictyopyge,  55. 
macrura,  55. 

Diplurus,  31,  44,  74. 

longicaudatus,  44,  74. 

Dipterus  valenciennesi,  17. 

Ecphora  quadricostata,  39. 

Eurynotus  ceratocephalus,  66. 
tenuiceps,  66. 

Heptanema  paradoxum,  31,  44. 

Heterolepidotus,  27. 

Holoptychius,  34. 

Hybodus,  30,  34. 

Ischypterus,  24,  57,  61. 
agassizii,  61. 
beardmorei,  71. 
fultus,  64,  65. 
latus,  66 
macropterus,  64. 
marshi,  61. 
micropterus,  67. 
minutus,  71. 
newberryi,  67,  69. 
parvus,  71. 
ovatus,  69. 
tenuiceps,  66. 


Lepidosteus,  18,  47,  57. 

Lepidotus,  60. 

Leptolepis,  18. 

Macropoma,  43. 

Megalonyx  jeffersoni,  39. 

Mesacanthus  mitchelli,  15. 

Nematoptychius,  59. 

Palaeoniscus,  59. 
agassizii,  61. 
fultus,  64. 
latus,  66. 
macropterus,  64. 
ovatus,  69. 

Perleidus,  46,  47,  60,  72. 
altolepis,  27,  71. 

Pholidophorus,  18,  35,  71,  72. 

Polypterus,  16. 

Protopterus,  18. 

Ptycholepis,  31,  73,  74. 
marshi,  73. 

Redfieldius,  47. 

Rhabdolepis,  59. 

Rhadinichthys,  59. 

Sagenodus,  18. 

Semionotus,  24,  40,  57,  74. 
agassizii,  61,  62. 
bergeri,  58. 
brauni  71. 
capensis,  58. 
elegans,  71. 
fultus,  64. 
gigas,  70. 
lineatus,  71. 
marshi,  61. 
micropterus,  67. 
nilssoni,  58,  71. 
ovatus,  69. 
robustus,  70. 
tenuiceps,  66. 

Tetragonolepis,  69,  70. 

Undina,  43. 

Urolepis,  32. 

Xenestes,  34. 


Plate  I. 


Semianotus  agassizii  ( W.  C.  Redfield).  Trias  ; Sunderland,  Massachusetts.  This  specimen  is  the  type  of  Newberry’s 
Ischypterus  marshti.  Original  in  Peabody  Museum  of  Yale  University.  X U 


Plate  II. 


Semionotus  agassizii  ( W.  C.  Redfield)  Trias  ; Sunderland,  Massachusetts.  Head  and  anterior  portion  of  the  trunk  of  a well  preserved 
individual  serving  as  the  basis  of  Dr.  Eaton’s  restoration  of  the  cranial  osteology.  Original  in  Peabody  Museum  of  Yale  University.  X J-. 


Plate  III 


Semionotns  fultus  ( Agassiz).  Trias  ; Boonton,  New  Jersey.  Nearly  complete  fish,  illustrated  in  Plate  6,  Fig.  2,  of  Newberry’s  Monograph. 

Original  in  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York.  X f. 


Plate  IV 


- <D 
'd  £ 
a; 

t £ 

% o 

£ .g 

■ ~ 13 

o £ 
<u  £ 
*£  0J 

a 's 

n £ 

<D  p 
X!  CD 

c3  p 

t-.  « 

. ^ 
<u 

Ph  c3 


crt 

X « 
D P 

Td  < 

<U  _ 


0)  ^ 

bfi  .5 

5 w 

a>  "C 
> ^ 
< 

d 

<p 


fl  C/3 

° o 

g *§ 
S ^ 
o o 

U g 

- <d 

C O 
o$  aj 

T rt 

n a 


b § 

ir 

0)  -p 

25  S2 


I? 

,Q 

£2  <« 
S C 


Plate  V 


Semionotus  elegans  (Newberry).  Trias  ; Boonton,  New  Jersey.  Nearly  complete  fish,  illustrated  in  Plate  14,  Fig.  1,  of 
Newberry’s  Monograph.  Original  in  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York.  X 


Plate  VI. 


Semionotus  nilssoni  Agassiz.  Rhaetie;  Hoegenaes, 
Sweden.  Head  portion  of  holotype,  showing  cra- 
nial plates  and  dentition.  Original  in  Museum  of 
Comparative  Zoology,  Cambridge,  Massachusetts 
( Cat.  No.  2685  ).  X y- 


Plate  VII 


Ptycholepis  marshi  Newberry.  Trias  ; Durham,  Connecticut  Complete  fish,  illustrated  in  Plate  19,  Fig.  1,  of 
Newberry’s  Monograph.  Original  in  Museum  of  Wesleyan  University.  X y. 


Plate  VIII. 


Ptycholepis  marshi  Newberry.  Trias  ; Durham,  Connecticut.  Well  preserved  fish,  showing  dorsal  aspect  of  flattened-out  cranium. 

Original  in  Peabody  Museum  of  Yale  University.  X y. 


Plate  IX. 


Catopterus  gracilis  J.  H.  Redfield.  Trias;  Sawmill  Hollow,  four  miles  southwest  of  Middletown,  Connecticut.  Cotype. 

Original  in  Peabody  Museum  of  Yale  University.  X f. 


Plate  X. 


Catopterus  gracilis  J.  H.  Redfield.  Trias  (Posterior  shale);  Durham,  Connecticut.  Nearly  complete  fish,  the  only  one  of  this 
species  yet  discovered  in  the  uppermost  horizon  of  the  Durham  section.  The  whitish  appearance  of  the  scales  is  due  to  mineral 
replacement  resulting  from  chemical  action  upon  the  enclosing  shale.  Original  collected  by  S.  Ward  Loper,  and  now  in  the 
Muesum  of  Wesleyan  University.  X f. 


Plate  XI. 


Museum  of  Wesleyan  University. 


Q<"Jc 


rJ 


SHELF  BINDER 


Syracuse,  N. 
Stockton,  Cal 


Y. 

if. 


boston  college 

SCIENCE  LIBRARY 


9031 


01478448 


Q 1 

UX  I 


O 


QE851 

0 c 1 ri  r-  - 

.E2 

6 O JL  » . J 

Author 

Eastman.  Charles  R. 

Trias  sic  Fishes  of  Conn  ecti  gat 


Boston  College  Science  Library 

Chestnut  Hill  67,  Mass. 

Books  may  be  kept  for  two  weeks  unless  a 
shorter  time  is  specified. 

Two  cents  a day  is  charged  for  each  2 -week 
book  kept  overtime;  25  cents  a day  for  each  over- 
night book. 

If  you  cannot  find  what  you  want,  inquire  at 
the  delivery  desk  for  assistance. 


